Kate

This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.

http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg

Thanks
Kate

David Lee

Kate wrote...
> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>
> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg

Kate

That really is a splendid photograph!
Could it be a Dance Fly - Empididae species?
I thought Empis tessellata - but the abdomen of your specimen seems very
slender.

However, I should declare my level of expertise as "basic"!

David

Kate

"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:v-KdnX1DWOMnBHnZRVnyvg@eclipse.net.uk...
> Kate wrote...
>> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know
>> what
>> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>>
>> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>
> Kate
>
> That really is a splendid photograph!
> Could it be a Dance Fly - Empididae species?
> I thought Empis tessellata - but the abdomen of your specimen seems
> very slender.
>
> However, I should declare my level of expertise as "basic"!
>
> David

Seems about right, David, as in another shot you can see the short,
triangular cell at the wing-tip, plus there`s the "horny proboscis"
(Collins Field Guide: Insects of Britain & N Europe). I did take a
photo of its face, but it was very OOF, otherwise I might have seen
the "eye-nick" the book also mentions. Thanks for the info - and the
compliment.

Kate

no@emails.thx

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:02:07 +0100, "Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
>message news:v-KdnX1DWOMnBHnZRVnyvg@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Kate wrote...
>>> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know
>>> what
>>> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>>>
>>> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>>
>> Kate
>>
>> That really is a splendid photograph!
>> Could it be a Dance Fly - Empididae species?
>> I thought Empis tessellata - but the abdomen of your specimen seems
>> very slender.
>>
>> However, I should declare my level of expertise as "basic"!
>>
>> David
>
>Seems about right, David, as in another shot you can see the short,
>triangular cell at the wing-tip, plus there`s the "horny proboscis"
>(Collins Field Guide: Insects of Britain & N Europe). I did take a
>photo of its face, but it was very OOF, otherwise I might have seen
>the "eye-nick" the book also mentions. Thanks for the info - and the
>compliment.

Hi Kate

Don't get too excited - it isn't an empid fly. It's an asilid or
Robber Fly - probably Machimus atricapillus (female). )

Both groups of fly catch insects but they are not related very
closely. In general asilids have a short, stout, forward-pointing
proboscis and empids have a longer, thinner, downward-pointing one.

Cheers
Chris R.

kauhl-meersburg

I propose * laphria marginata * - we call them murder flies - when you
have seen two of them, it surely was male / female in preparation of
coupling
cheers kauhl

Kate schrieb:
> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>
> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>
> Thanks
> Kate
>
>
>

no@emails.thx

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:55:38 +0100, "Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
>it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>
>http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>

Hi Kate

For a definitive ID try posting the photo to http://diptera.info/ -
it's a free forum full of fly experts just waiting to give their
opinion on photos )

Cheers
Chris R.

David Lee

Chris R. wrote...
> Don't get too excited - it isn't an empid fly. It's an asilid or
> Robber Fly - probably Machimus atricapillus (female). )
>
> Both groups of fly catch insects but they are not related very
> closely. In general asilids have a short, stout, forward-pointing
> proboscis and empids have a longer, thinner, downward-pointing one.

I thought the abdomen was a bit slender for my suggestion to be correct.
The picture of Machimus atricapillus (female) at
www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/P1/P14001.php does indeed look much more like it.
Problem is we've got too many insects and not enough room in the books!

David

Kate

"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:WY6dnWEWcMCZfnnZnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@eclipse.net. uk...
> Chris R. wrote...
>> Don't get too excited - it isn't an empid fly. It's an asilid or
>> Robber Fly - probably Machimus atricapillus (female). )
>>
>> Both groups of fly catch insects but they are not related very
>> closely. In general asilids have a short, stout, forward-pointing
>> proboscis and empids have a longer, thinner, downward-pointing one.
>
> I thought the abdomen was a bit slender for my suggestion to be
> correct. The picture of Machimus atricapillus (female) at
> www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/P1/P14001.php does indeed look much more
> like it. Problem is we've got too many insects and not enough room
> in the books!
>
> David
>

Ah yes, that`s more like it. Thanks.

Chris R : I tried registering with the Diptera Forum you suggested,
but am still waiting for their email to say I can log on. Meanwhile,
it seems pretty sure that she is a Robber Fly - although pretty she
aint!

Kate

Nogood Boyo

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 at 15:55:38 in uk.rec.natural-history Kate wrote:
>This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
>it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>
>http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>
>Thanks
>Kate
>
Great pic. A shot from above would be helpful.

Heather Fly, Bibio Pomonae..?

--
Nogood Boyo

MCC

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:55:38 +0100, Kate wrote:

> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>
> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>
> Thanks
> Kate

I am no fly expert, so haven't a clue, but would like to say what a great
photograph that is, as are all the others on your website. (I had a sneaky
peek!)
--
MCC

Malcolm

In article <1tzdvxomss1ek$.jf2lvcy1gctj$.dlg@40tude.net>, MCC
<mcc5959@hotmail.com> writes
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:55:38 +0100, Kate wrote:
>
>> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
>> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>>
>> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>>
>> Thanks
>> Kate
>
>I am no fly expert, so haven't a clue, but would like to say what a great
>photograph that is, as are all the others on your website. (I had a sneaky
>peek!)

What a cracking set of images! And here's me with the same camera and
zoom lens and I'm not even trying to photograph insects!!

--
Malcolm

Michael J Davis

Kate <?@?.?.invalid> observed
>This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
>it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>
>http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg

Wonderful photo, Kate!

Can't help with the ID, sorry.

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><

no@emails.thx

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:38:22 +0100, Nogood Boyo
<NogoodBoyo@bwllfa.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 at 15:55:38 in uk.rec.natural-history Kate wrote:
>>This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know what
>>it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>>
>>http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>>
>>Thanks
>>Kate
>>
>Great pic. A shot from above would be helpful.
>
>Heather Fly, Bibio Pomonae..?

Bibionids usually have completely black bodies and the wing venation
is very much reduced in comparisson to this fly. There is absolutely
no doubt that this is from the family Asilidae - I have collected many
in the past and one of my specialities is the Bibionid flies. I am
just not 100% sure of the genus/species ID because I haven't keyed it
through in the correct book )

Chris R.

no@emails.thx

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:27:32 +0100, "Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
>message news:WY6dnWEWcMCZfnnZnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@eclipse.net. uk...
>> Chris R. wrote...
>>> Don't get too excited - it isn't an empid fly. It's an asilid or
>>> Robber Fly - probably Machimus atricapillus (female). )
>>>
>>> Both groups of fly catch insects but they are not related very
>>> closely. In general asilids have a short, stout, forward-pointing
>>> proboscis and empids have a longer, thinner, downward-pointing one.
>>
>> I thought the abdomen was a bit slender for my suggestion to be
>> correct. The picture of Machimus atricapillus (female) at
>> www.bioimages.org.uk/HTML/P1/P14001.php does indeed look much more
>> like it. Problem is we've got too many insects and not enough room
>> in the books!
>>
>> David
>>
>
>Ah yes, that`s more like it. Thanks.
>
>Chris R : I tried registering with the Diptera Forum you suggested,
>but am still waiting for their email to say I can log on. Meanwhile,
>it seems pretty sure that she is a Robber Fly - although pretty she
>aint!

Hi Kate

Persevere - it's a very useful forum for both experts and novices
alike. Just a browse through the gallery can show you a wide range of
the fly families and watching the ID forums can teach you a lot about
what features determine the family a fly belongs to. )

Chris R.

Kate

"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Zyl8I1drGW5EFwDk@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <1tzdvxomss1ek$.jf2lvcy1gctj$.dlg@40tude.net>, MCC
> <mcc5959@hotmail.com> writes
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:55:38 +0100, Kate wrote:
>>
>>> This fly (I think it is a fly) was about 15mm long. Anyone know
>>> what
>>> it is, please? We saw two in the garden yesterday.
>>>
>>> http://www.trik.demon.co.uk/images/fly_query.jpg
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Kate
>>
>>I am no fly expert, so haven't a clue, but would like to say what a
>>great
>>photograph that is, as are all the others on your website. (I had a
>>sneaky
>>peek!)
>
> What a cracking set of images! And here's me with the same camera
> and zoom lens and I'm not even trying to photograph insects!!
>
> --
> Malcolm

Thanks to all for the compliments! Malcolm, the picture of the Robber
Fly was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 4500 as the fly didn`t seem to mind
my being up close and that`s a good camera for macro work. However,
the lens is nowhere near as good as the Canon 300mm prime with which
most of the shots on our website were taken.

Kate

sleepalot

Kate wrote:
> Thanks to all for the compliments! Malcolm, the picture of the Robber
> Fly was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 4500 as the fly didn`t seem to mind
> my being up close and that`s a good camera for macro work. However,
> the lens is nowhere near as good as the Canon 300mm prime with which
> most of the shots on our website were taken.
>
> Kate

There's clearly more to it than camera skill though.
How did you manage to photograph that mouse?

Kate

"sleepalot" <sleepy03@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:1155931209.489401.31190@74g2000cwt.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> Kate wrote:
>> Thanks to all for the compliments! Malcolm, the picture of the
>> Robber
>> Fly was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 4500 as the fly didn`t seem to
>> mind
>> my being up close and that`s a good camera for macro work. However,
>> the lens is nowhere near as good as the Canon 300mm prime with
>> which
>> most of the shots on our website were taken.
>>
>> Kate
>
> There's clearly more to it than camera skill though.
> How did you manage to photograph that mouse?
>

I knew where the mouse was nesting and when it came out to feed -
dusk. I put down a little bird food (in crumb form, otherwise the
mouse snatched up the food and went under cover) in the same place for
3 or 4 evenings and then positioned myself carefully. When the mouse
appeared, I raised the camera and stayed *very* still. I had to use
flash as the light was so poor and at the first flash the mouse dashed
back under cover, but soon re-emerged, so in this way I was able to
get several, usuable, shots. At the time, we just had the Nikon
Coolpix, so I was only about 3ft away but had to crop the image for
the subject to fill the shot. Now we have the better gear, the mouse
has disappeared - of course! Incidentally, I believe that, although
mice have proportionately large eyes, they are attuned to detect
movement, rather than shapes; their hearing is excellent, so staying
still and quiet seems to work.

Kate

sleepalot

Kate wrote:
> "sleepalot" <sleepy03@fsmail.net> wrote in message
> news:1155931209.489401.31190@74g2000cwt.googlegrou ps.com...
> > There's clearly more to it than camera skill though.
> > How did you manage to photograph that mouse?
> >
>
> I knew where the mouse was nesting and when it came out to feed -
> dusk. I put down a little bird food (in crumb form, otherwise the
> mouse snatched up the food and went under cover) in the same place for
> 3 or 4 evenings and then positioned myself carefully. When the mouse
> appeared, I raised the camera and stayed *very* still. I had to use
> flash as the light was so poor and at the first flash the mouse dashed
> back under cover, but soon re-emerged, so in this way I was able to
> get several, usuable, shots. At the time, we just had the Nikon
> Coolpix, so I was only about 3ft away but had to crop the image for
> the subject to fill the shot. Now we have the better gear, the mouse
> has disappeared - of course! Incidentally, I believe that, although
> mice have proportionately large eyes, they are attuned to detect
> movement, rather than shapes; their hearing is excellent, so staying
> still and quiet seems to work.
>
3ft ! Wow ! Thanks for that - great story.

PG

Kate wrote:
> "Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Zyl8I1drGW5EFwDk@indaal.demon.co.uk...

> > What a cracking set of images! And here's me with the same camera
> > and zoom lens and I'm not even trying to photograph insects!!
>
> Thanks to all for the compliments!

I'll add my complimets to the list - some lovely pics there. But I
wondered if your Brown Argus is actually a female Common Blue? I think
there's too much blue on the body and wing uppers for it to be a brown
argus.

- PG

Kate

On closer reading of my ID book, I think you are right, PG. I shall
change the web page forthwith and hope to get a Brown Argus another
time.

I`m afraid that`s the second wrong identification I have made, the
other being the Pied Shield Bug nymph which turns out to be a Green
Shield Bug nymph. In future, I think I shall refer any "doubtfuls" to
this knowledgeable group before adding another photo and risking
further embarrassment!

Kate

"PG" <disposable1@psae.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1156159737.496973.167490@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Kate wrote:
>> "Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Zyl8I1drGW5EFwDk@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>> > What a cracking set of images! And here's me with the same camera
>> > and zoom lens and I'm not even trying to photograph insects!!
>>
>> Thanks to all for the compliments!
>
> I'll add my complimets to the list - some lovely pics there. But I
> wondered if your Brown Argus is actually a female Common Blue? I
> think
> there's too much blue on the body and wing uppers for it to be a
> brown
> argus.
>
> - PG
>

PG

Kate wrote:
> On closer reading of my ID book, I think you are right, PG. I shall
> change the web page forthwith and hope to get a Brown Argus another
> time.

<smug> As it happens, I took some rather nice pictures of Brown Arguses
the week before last. </smug>

:-)

- PG

Kate

"PG" <disposable1@psae.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1156173050.716836.266920@m79g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
> Kate wrote:
>> On closer reading of my ID book, I think you are right, PG. I
>> shall
>> change the web page forthwith and hope to get a Brown Argus another
>> time.
>
> <smug> As it happens, I took some rather nice pictures of Brown
> Arguses
> the week before last. </smug>
>
> :-)
>
> - PG
>

Are you sure they`re not female Common Blues, PG? ;-)

I have now changed the relevant entry on our website and have also
added a blue form of the female Common Blue - I hope!

Kate

PG

Kate wrote:

> Are you sure they`re not female Common Blues, PG? ;-)

Well, there were about ten of them, all completely brown, in a
square-metre patch, so unless it was some kind of Common Blue hen
party, I'm fairly confident. :-)

> I have now changed the relevant entry on our website and have also
> added a blue form of the female Common Blue - I hope!

Well I would have said the blue one's a male, but I could be wrong!
>From what I can see in the photo it looks too blue to be a female, but
then according to

http://www.butterfly-conservation.or...mmon_blue.html

"The colour of the upperwings of females varies from almost completely
brown in southern England to predominantly blue in western Ireland and
Scotland, but the colour is variable within local populations with some
striking examples. "

So it depends where the photo was taken, I guess.

- PG

Kate

"PG" <disposable1@psae.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1156177484.349842.132940@74g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
> Kate wrote:
>
>> Are you sure they`re not female Common Blues, PG? ;-)
>
> Well, there were about ten of them, all completely brown, in a
> square-metre patch, so unless it was some kind of Common Blue hen
> party, I'm fairly confident. :-)
>
>> I have now changed the relevant entry on our website and have also
>> added a blue form of the female Common Blue - I hope!
>
> Well I would have said the blue one's a male, but I could be wrong!
>>From what I can see in the photo it looks too blue to be a female,
>>but
> then according to
>
> http://www.butterfly-conservation.or...mmon_blue.html
>
> "The colour of the upperwings of females varies from almost
> completely
> brown in southern England to predominantly blue in western Ireland
> and
> Scotland, but the colour is variable within local populations with
> some
> striking examples. "
>
> So it depends where the photo was taken, I guess.
>
> - PG
>

I thought the all-blue with white borders was the male CB (taken in
southern England) and the blue with orange spots was the blue form of
the female CB. The photo of the latter was taken in W. Scotland, so I
could be right, I guess. It might be safer if I just named them all
"Blue Butterflies" and have done with it!

Kate

PG

Kate wrote:

> I thought the all-blue with white borders was the male CB (taken in
> southern England) and the blue with orange spots was the blue form of
> the female CB. The photo of the latter was taken in W. Scotland, so I
> could be right, I guess. It might be safer if I just named them all
> "Blue Butterflies" and have done with it!

You're quite right - the orange spots indicate a female. My apologies.

- PG

Kate

"PG" <disposable1@psae.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1156191399.527587.172290@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Kate wrote:
>
>> I thought the all-blue with white borders was the male CB (taken in
>> southern England) and the blue with orange spots was the blue form
>> of
>> the female CB. The photo of the latter was taken in W. Scotland,
>> so I
>> could be right, I guess. It might be safer if I just named them
>> all
>> "Blue Butterflies" and have done with it!
>
> You're quite right - the orange spots indicate a female. My
> apologies.
>
> - PG

No apologies necessary. I am just pleased that now I have the correct
IDs.

Best wishes
Kate

Malcolm

In article <1156177484.349842.132940@74g2000cwt.googlegroups. com>, PG
<disposable1@psae.f2s.com> writes
>Kate wrote:
>
>> Are you sure they`re not female Common Blues, PG? ;-)
>
>Well, there were about ten of them, all completely brown, in a
>square-metre patch, so unless it was some kind of Common Blue hen
>party, I'm fairly confident. :-)
>
>> I have now changed the relevant entry on our website and have also
>> added a blue form of the female Common Blue - I hope!
>
>Well I would have said the blue one's a male, but I could be wrong!
>>From what I can see in the photo it looks too blue to be a female, but
>then according to
>
>http://www.butterfly-conservation.or...mmon_blue.html
>
>"The colour of the upperwings of females varies from almost completely
>brown in southern England to predominantly blue in western Ireland and
>Scotland, but the colour is variable within local populations with some
>striking examples. "
>
>So it depends where the photo was taken, I guess.
>
The Common Blues here in the west of Scotland regularly confuse visitors
from southern England!

Not only are the females blue, but the males tend to be larger and
brighter (some books suggest subspecific status) leading to claims by
visitors from darn sarf of other species, e.g. Silver-studded and even,
once, Adonis! If only.....:-)

--
Malcolm

Malcolm

In article <eccq6s$en0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, Kate
<?@?.?.invalid> writes
>
>"PG" <disposable1@psae.f2s.com> wrote in message
>news:1156177484.349842.132940@74g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
>> Kate wrote:
>>
>>> Are you sure they`re not female Common Blues, PG? ;-)
>>
>> Well, there were about ten of them, all completely brown, in a
>> square-metre patch, so unless it was some kind of Common Blue hen
>> party, I'm fairly confident. :-)
>>
>>> I have now changed the relevant entry on our website and have also
>>> added a blue form of the female Common Blue - I hope!
>>
>> Well I would have said the blue one's a male, but I could be wrong!
>>>From what I can see in the photo it looks too blue to be a female,
>>>but
>> then according to
>>
>> http://www.butterfly-conservation.or...mmon_blue.html
>>
>> "The colour of the upperwings of females varies from almost
>> completely
>> brown in southern England to predominantly blue in western Ireland
>> and
>> Scotland, but the colour is variable within local populations with
>> some
>> striking examples. "
>>
>> So it depends where the photo was taken, I guess.
>>
>> - PG
>>
>
>I thought the all-blue with white borders was the male CB (taken in
>southern England) and the blue with orange spots was the blue form of
>the female CB. The photo of the latter was taken in W. Scotland, so I
>could be right, I guess. It might be safer if I just named them all
>"Blue Butterflies" and have done with it!
>
See my other post. The Common Blue is the only blue in the west of
Scotland.

--
Malcolm