next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Hi Dave, Angus, Chris et al I stayed off this one because I don't have a useful opinion on the I.D. of the particular calliphorid fly, and it raises a couple of extra taxonomic questions I'm not up on either. I'm interested in fly evolution and so in real phylogeny in connection with the evolution of the nervous system, but try to stay off taxonomy until I need something identified, and hate I.D. keys (I know, taxonomy is supposed to reflect phylogeny these days, but it is a practical naming system with extra rules of precedence of its own). First, P. or L. sericata are easy flies to rear in culture, and the occasional published (physiological) N. American paper has referred to Phaenicia sericata, yet the English folks I knew a while back seemed to prefer Lucilia sericata. Same species or what? So when I got to live in Australia, I asked the then main Oz dipterist about this, Don Colless of CSIRO (who I came to rely upon, as the co-author with the other McAlpine of the terrific chapter on Diptera in the CSIRO fat handbook "Insects of Australia"). He said the two were the same species, and this is echoed in Harold Oldroyd's popular book, full of great forensic anecdotes about things like coffin flies, "Natural History of Flies". So in this particular case, I think the names P. or L. sericata are synonyms -- it's the same species. I got the impression from taxonomists that there may be quite a lot of cases like this, where there are perhaps two different descriptions of the same species on different continents by different people, then given different names. The situation may remain unresolved until a modern dipteran taxonomy specialist goes at it. There aren't too many of these around the world and this is not what most want to spend time doing, so it is not necessarily clear that there really is only one species, not two, in any particular case until it is re-examined. Then there's the question of which of the names to use, which depends on a ruling from the International something of Zoological Nomenclature (name from dim memory), which determines and rules upon which name was used first and so has precedence, which sounds simple. Diptera are notorious, however, because of the 'Meigen names', a large bunch of fly names issued early by Meigen but lost from about 1800 to the early 1900s. There are so many of these names as to massively shake up dipteran naming, so the last time I heard, there was some move by individuals to ignore the Meigen names, as a special taxonomic case to keep the naming system stable, but overlooking their precedence. I don't know the current status of this quandry but Chris may know more of this, perhaps the soft underbelly of taxonomy. Most of us just want to be able to use a reliable name. Finally, the sericata synonymy doesn't mean that Lucilia and Phaenicia are the same genus and that one should choose one or the other. As far as I know, both are still valid genera each with its raft of unique species. It's just that there's only one sericata, so we have to decide by which generic name to call it. For another calliphorid in widespread use, the common blowfly or bluebottle, the earlier literature in 20th century uses Calliphora erythrocephala (Meigen) quite widely, but some papers now quote Calliphora vicina (Robineau-Desvoidy 1830) -- synonyms for the same species, but this time with a stable genus. I hope Chris will have a go at this one too. Sounds like naming something like a fly ought to be simple, but quite often it isn't for historical reasons. Steve [By the way Angus, the beast that you thought looked like a robberfly mimicking a bee looked like a real bee to me] ************************ Quoting David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>: > Hi Angus & Steve, June 6, 2007 > Although I spent much of my spare time this winter going through > fly material I am still on the steep part of the learing curve. Or > was until I slid back after setting them aside for 2 months. So a > fair degree of confusion and uncertainty is, from my viewpoint, > normal. This was my motive for drawing Steve into this; the chance he > might know more. > > Some flies that look very similar, at a glance or in a photo, turn > out to be quite different when examined under the mike, especially if > one slogs through a key and is directed to examine the relevant parts. > > The hair on the scutum business get back to the old 'it depends > upon what you mean by hair'. Your fly has a good complement of > out-of-focus bristles on the scutum and your source may refer to > these as hairs. The species _sericata_ was still in the genus > "Phaenicia" when Nearctic Diptera was written so my concept of > _Phaenicia_ , if correct as based on this reference, is apparently > now incorrect. The distinction between the two in Nearctic Diptera is > based on pubesence of the subcostal sclerite; _Lucilia_ has > conspicuous black hairs on the apical half (I see none) and > _Phaenicia_ has micropubesence only. > Yt, DW > > Angus MacLean wrote: > >> Hi David & Steve: >> Thanks David, for pointing this out. I had checked out "Phaenicia >> sericata" which is said to be one of the most common "green bottle" >> fly. It has hairs on its scutum whereas mine doesn't. (Is this >> important?) I was going by a photo in Stephen Marshall's "Insects >> ....Eastern N.A." (485.5) and by the face pattern which matched the >> one I had photographed. I realize this is a long way from actually >> keying a fly out.The keys in the aforementioned book allows one to >> key out to the blow fly family only. >> >> Here is a image of Phaenicia sericata (By the way this species is >> now named Lucilia sericata): >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diptera_02gg.jpg >> >> Angus >> >> p.s. I came on another image of Lucilia illustris which has scutum >> hair so I'm really confused!! >> >> >> At 09:37 AM 6/5/2007, you wrote: >>> Angus MacLean wrote: >>> Hi Angus & Steve, Jun 5, 2007 >>> The greenish fly that I find commonly, keys out to a closely >>> related genus, _Phaenicia_ & I have not seen _Lucilia_, so far as I >>> know. Have you ruled out _Phaenicia_ based on other characters ? >>> Yt, DW >>> >>>> This Green Bottle Fly is very common in gardens and elsewhere & in >>>> fact, can hardly be missed if you're outdoors. This one appears to >>>> be Lucilia illustris based on its face markings. Based on their >>>> development, Blow Fly species are used by forensic scientists to >>>> determine time of death & thus help to solve crimes. I understand >>>> their larvae (maggots) are used to clean up difficult wounds in >>>> living flesh and bone!! >>>> >>>> Here is one smaller image: >>>> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/58321572@N00/530236400/ >>>> >>>> And an enlarged image that reveals every detail: >>>> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=530236400&size=o >>>> >>>> Angus
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects