The Hoverfly Thread (5 Viewers)

[IamFof]

Rotherbirder.
Let me put my Two pennies' worth in.
I presume that colincurry is not a diptera specialist and, like me, gets what photo he is able to, courtesy of the specimen.
If I had posted these images, also not being a diptera specialist, how would I know that a face-on shot is what would be required to ID it?
If I knew that already, I probably wouldn't need to request an ID.
In my opinion, I would be happy with these images, and would not consider them mediocre, but I am only a person who appreciates nature for what it is and if a bee, or a hover-fly, or what ever presents itself and is willing to hang around long enough for me to get a picture or two, GREAT. Most of the time they are very camera shy and don't hang around for more than a few seconds.

 

[Surreybirder]

Rotherbirder.
Let me put my Two pennies' worth in.
I presume that colincurry is not a diptera specialist and, like me, gets what photo he is able to, courtesy of the specimen.
If I had posted these images, also not being a diptera specialist, how would I know that a face-on shot is what would be required to ID it?
If I knew that already, I probably wouldn't need to request an ID.
In my opinion, I would be happy with these images, and would not consider them mediocre, but I am only a person who appreciates nature for what it is and if a bee, or a hover-fly, or what ever presents itself and is willing to hang around long enough for me to get a picture or two, GREAT. Most of the time they are very camera shy and don't hang around for more than a few seconds.

Well said. 'Why didn't you post the front-on shot to start with' implies that Colin is being 'difficult' (and is therefore somewhat derogatory) whereas the truth is that he genuinely didn't realise that such a shot could aid the diagnosis. No need for anyone to throw their toys out of the pram.

 

[Rotherbirder]

Thank you both for your input which, if I thought about it too hard, I could construe as offensive too. At risk of causing an argument and in the true spirit of free speech, perhaps I can make a couple of comments myself:

Firstly, I doubt that many - if any - contributors to this forum would regard themselves as 'specialists', me included. I'm a birder first and foremost but have an appreciation of all forms of wildlife, which adds interest and excitement to many a dull birding day. We are all at varying stages of experience and everyone is learning, some more than others. It is widely accepted that relatively few insects are identifiable to species from images, hoverflies included, though they are one of the more popular groups and are well covered in the literature and on the web. I know a highly regarded 'specialist' entomologist who is loath to accept any identifications based on images and I have had personal experience of this! His opinion may be seen as extreme, verging on the 'Victorian' these days but is as valid as anyone else's. Presumably he would be given a hard time here too? Instead of reaching for the camera straight away, why not catch the 'hover' in a glass tube or jar and inspect it 'in the flesh' with a hand lens before releasing it. It adds a whole new level of fascination and satisfaction and with Stubbs & Falk or Ball & Morris to hand, you can try to work through the IDs yourself.

Secondly, it would be nice if those requesting an identification from photographs would show some willing and come to the party with a suggestion of what they think the species is in their images, rather than expecting others to do all the work. This would promote more constructive discussion and the OP would probably go away with more useful information that actually 'sticks' and would thus be of more help to them in the future. What happened to reading around a subject so that you know what to expect and what to look for when out in the field, so that any shots that are taken are more likely to show useful features? Just like birding, you get more out of it if there is more input on your part.

RB

 

[Surreybirder]

Thank you both for your input which, if I thought about it too hard, I could construe as offensive too. At risk of causing an argument and in the true spirit of free speech, perhaps I can make a couple of comments myself:

Firstly, I doubt that many - if any - contributors to this forum would regard themselves as 'specialists', me included. I'm a birder first and foremost but have an appreciation of all forms of wildlife, which adds interest and excitement to many a dull birding day. We are all at varying stages of experience and everyone is learning, some more than others. It is widely accepted that relatively few insects are identifiable to species from images, hoverflies included, though they are one of the more popular groups and are well covered in the literature and on the web. I know a highly regarded 'specialist' entomologist who is loath to accept any identifications based on images and I have had personal experience of this! His opinion may be seen as extreme, verging on the 'Victorian' these days but is as valid as anyone else's. Presumably he would be given a hard time here too? Instead of reaching for the camera straight away, why not catch the 'hover' in a glass tube or jar and inspect it 'in the flesh' with a hand lens before releasing it. It adds a whole new level of fascination and satisfaction and with Stubbs & Falk or Ball & Morris to hand, you can try to work through the IDs yourself.

Secondly, it would be nice if those requesting an identification from photographs would show some willing and come to the party with a suggestion of what they think the species is in their images, rather than expecting others to do all the work. This would promote more constructive discussion and the OP would probably go away with more useful information that actually 'sticks' and would thus be of more help to them in the future. What happened to reading around a subject so that you know what to expect and what to look for when out in the field, so that any shots that are taken are more likely to show useful features? Just like birding, you get more out of it if there is more input on your part.

RB

You make fair points... although I often take casual photos of things I see when out walking and then post them on iSpot in the hope that someone will be able to ID them. You could argue that this is a lazy approach but I simply don't have the time to read up on fungi, lichens, molluscs, Odonata, Syrphidae, grasshoppers, soldier flies, moths, butterflies, plants and all the other things that I come across. You could argue that I should then not exploit the experts on iSpot - but equally, some of them occasionally express gratitude for observations that fill in gaps in their species distribution maps. I think that there has to be space for the generalist as well as the specialists. Hoverflies is a well-studied group but there are lots of others where only a handful of people really know what they are talking about. the other problem that I encounter, a feature of age no doubt, is that I forget stuff almost as easily as I learn new stuff.
Just to give one example, our county recorder was very happy to ID some of the micromoths and leaf-miners I sent him, one of which turned out to be a first for Surrey. At the time, there wasn't a handy reference ID to micromoths and I wasn't sufficiently interested to buy several volumes of 'Moths of Great Britain and Ireland' at great expense (for comparatively poor illustrations).

 

[Farnboro John]

Thank you both for your input which, if I thought about it too hard, I could construe as offensive too. At risk of causing an argument and in the true spirit of free speech, perhaps I can make a couple of comments myself:

Firstly, I doubt that many - if any - contributors to this forum would regard themselves as 'specialists', me included. I'm a birder first and foremost but have an appreciation of all forms of wildlife, which adds interest and excitement to many a dull birding day. We are all at varying stages of experience and everyone is learning, some more than others. It is widely accepted that relatively few insects are identifiable to species from images, hoverflies included, though they are one of the more popular groups and are well covered in the literature and on the web. I know a highly regarded 'specialist' entomologist who is loath to accept any identifications based on images and I have had personal experience of this! His opinion may be seen as extreme, verging on the 'Victorian' these days but is as valid as anyone else's. Presumably he would be given a hard time here too? Instead of reaching for the camera straight away, why not catch the 'hover' in a glass tube or jar and inspect it 'in the flesh' with a hand lens before releasing it. It adds a whole new level of fascination and satisfaction and with Stubbs & Falk or Ball & Morris to hand, you can try to work through the IDs yourself.

Secondly, it would be nice if those requesting an identification from photographs would show some willing and come to the party with a suggestion of what they think the species is in their images, rather than expecting others to do all the work. This would promote more constructive discussion and the OP would probably go away with more useful information that actually 'sticks' and would thus be of more help to them in the future. What happened to reading around a subject so that you know what to expect and what to look for when out in the field, so that any shots that are taken are more likely to show useful features? Just like birding, you get more out of it if there is more input on your part.

RB

Well, no it isn't actually. The truth is that some insects (and some groups are more amenable to this than others) are positively identifiable without either catching them or chopping them into small pieces after killing them. An opinion to the contrary is invalid, full stop.

On the other hand, everyone needs to accept - and I think most do - that some insects can't be identified without intrusive or fatal measures, and its certainly the case that some find this acceptable and some think it falls outside a hobby context. Both of those are valid opinions, and where an observer actually desires to make the maximum contribution to scientific knowledge, killing for ID must occasionally be involved. But only when necessary, and I suggest that once the presence of a species in an area is established beyond reasonable doubt, a lot of that justification disappears in favour of letting the population of the creature get on with life. This may mean killing for ID from the back garden trap should stop after a tick, or outside survey years, or once a year.... its not a valid procedure for every possible individual, anyway!

As to WAGs as to species in groups where the observer has no knowledge and perhaps is only gripped by the specially large/colourful species that happened to sit up for their camera: why shouldn't they just ask? What are experts for? I'll tell you an opinion that isn't counter to that but certainly develops from it, and that is that where someone responds to a request for ID they should say why they have selected that ID - on the bird ID forum people just name a species without explaining their opinion all the time and it does not convey any useful learning outcome, or offer a basis for discussion. That said I was very grateful for the ID of my hoverfly despite the lack of explanation.

Steps back, dons flak jacket, declares floor open....

John

 

[Rotherbirder]

Please don't put words into my mouth. If you care to re-read my post, you will see that I neither advocate nor condone the killing of any insect purely for ID purposes, though I agree with you that on occasion it is the only alternative.

RB

 

[Farnboro John]

Please don't put words into my mouth. If you care to re-read my post, you will see that I neither advocate nor condone the killing of any insect purely for ID purposes, though I agree with you that on occasion it is the only alternative.

RB

I didn't suggest you did, I merely commented on a general tendency. If you care to re-read my post, you will see even the issue of photographic vs close inspection ID is attributed to the chap you mentioned and not you.

Cheers

John

 

[IamFof]

RB
As Surreybirder said you back some fair points, but I still say that your response to colincurry was a bit over the top

it would be nice if those requesting an identification from photographs would show some willing and come to the party with a suggestion of what they think the species is in their images, rather than expecting others to do all the work.

I completely agree, and I also note that colincurry asked:

Wonder if these pics taken yesterday might be of an Eristalis nemorum please?

I have no want or need to focus on any group in the natural world, except maybe plants. If I happen to see something that draws my eye, I will attempt to photograph it and then ID. If I cannot, or have doubts as to my ID, I will post on a forum where others may be able to assist me.

Instead of reaching for the camera straight away, why not catch the 'hover' in a glass tube or jar and inspect it 'in the flesh' with a hand lens before releasing it. It adds a whole new level of fascination and satisfaction and with Stubbs & Falk or Ball & Morris to hand, you can try to work through the IDs yourself.

A great idea, but being a generalist, I would need to carry a net for catching aquatic species, a butterfly net for any moth or butterfly I spotted, a pooter to catch all those wee timidy beasties that crawl around, a mist net in case I spotted a bird I didn't recognise plus a multitude of tubes, jars, boxes etc to hold them while I delved through my humungous backpack for the relevant reference book(s).

 

[Sharpbill1]

I would welcome comments on this hoverfly. I have run the images through a couple of identification Apps and the suggestions are either Dasysyrphus venustus or Parasyrphus punctulatus. If it helps it appeared to be ovipositing on a dwarf conifer in my garden (my book ‘Britain’s Hoverflies’ suggests that Parasyrphus species are often associated with conifers).

Having read a few of the posts above I hope the photos, taken with an iPhone, are of sufficient quality. Go easy on me!

 

[aeshna5]

Doesn't look like Parasyrphus to me. Maybe Melangyna lasiophthalma?

 

[Sharpbill1]

Thank you Aeshna5. I also posted this on the Facebook Hoverfly site and Melangyna lasiophthalma was suggested there as well. I have a long way to go with Hoverflies!

 

[Pudsey Marle]

I saw this last week at Holme Dunes, NW Norfolk but I cannot identify it. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[aeshna5]

Syritta pipiens.

 

[Pudsey Marle]

Syritta pipiens.

Thank you

 

[Farnboro John]

This thread seems to have become disused but content fits my query so here goes: I photographed a hovering hoverfly in my garden yesterday and of course I've no idea what it is. Can anybody help, please?

Cheers

John

 

[colincurry]

I have been snapping hovering drone flies and I wonder if this might be one? Eristalis tenax apparently a honey bee mimic

Colin

 

[Farnboro John]

I have been snapping hovering drone flies and I wonder if this might be one? Eristalis tenax apparently a honey bee mimic

Colin

Does look right to me! I got a different angle on it today, I'll put one of those up in a bit in case it makes a difference.

Thank you for the help.

Cheers

John

 

[aeshna5]

I'd go more for E. pertinax.

 

[Farnboro John]

Today's offering below.

John

 

[aeshna5]

Still say E. pertinax with orangey front tarsi (dark in E. tenax) & lacks broad dark facial stripe of latter.