Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Upcoming Events

Information, insects and people from the 2019 BugGuide Gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Discussion, insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Photos of insects and people from the 2013 gathering in Arizona, July 25-28

Photos of insects and people from the 2012 gathering in Alabama

Photos of insects and people from the 2011 gathering in Iowa

Fly - Chrysomya rufifacies - male

Fly - Chrysomya rufifacies - Male
Sand Springs, Osage County, Oklahoma, USA
October 18, 2007
Size: 1/4"
I think this is another Blow Fly (a.k.a. Green Bottle Fly) but it looks different somehow....rounder or squatier. Please help with ID.

Images of this individual: tag all
Fly - Chrysomya rufifacies - male Fly - Chrysomya rufifacies - male

but it is not listed in Whitworth as occurring in Oklahoma.
These green/blue metallic flies are a confusing lot, I'm not even sure it is a calliphorid.

I don't have the credentials or education required to even comment but....

It seems to me that if Texas and Louisiana have them then why not Oklahoma ? Here's an example of what I mean, alligators are not indigenous to Oklahoma and you wouldn't think they should be here but they are. They migrated in from Louisiana. I guess my point is that just because a book says they shouldn't be here doesn't mean they aren't. It's the same with BugGuide data. Oklahoma is, in my opinion, very under represented but it doesn't mean that critters don't exist here just because they don't show up on a data map.

That's not really the point
Why do you think it's this species? Or, perhaps, why does Ron think it's this species. You are one that always seems to want an explanattion as to why species X is species X and yet you accept this specimen as a Chrysomya. In fact, you even go as far as identifying it to the species level! I don't know if it is or isn't. I cannot justify placing it in a genus, only wish I could.

Nothing personal. I have moved the mis-identified Strickand fly and will probably move, or at least question, many of the others in this genus.

That's ok, not taken personally. I have no idea if the ID is correct or not but I accepted the ID because Ron knows his flies and I know nothing. Like I said I don't have the credentials or education to even comment but I thought what the hell, I'll throw in my two cents....or 1 cent....or half cent....or maybe I have no cents :-D

Not to belittle Ron
but I just moved many of his ID's to the correct species

Thanks, Tony, for all your help.
Your knowledge of flies is far greater than mine, plus I'm no scientist. Also, I did say "I think" in my first comment, indicating more of a guess than an ID.

Just saw this
"I am thinking this image may be of flies in the genus Chrysomya and NOT Lucilia. Update: Indeed, these appear to be adults of the "hairy maggot blow fly," Chrysomya rufifacies, an introduced species now not uncommon in Florida and other southern states. The blue posterior margins of each abdominal segment are quite diagnostic.
… Eric R. Eaton, 28 December, 2005 - 5:52pm

If this is correct then your fly would be a Chrysoma based on the posterior margins.
And the relatively wide gap between the eyes in the other shot would make this a male rufifacies. Now we have good evidence to put a name to this fly.

Hairy maggot blow fly, I think.
Nice name, huh? Nice shots, for sure.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.