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

2018 BugGuide Gathering in Virginia July 27-29: Registration and Discussion

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

Photos from the 2010 Workshop in Grinnell, Iowa

Photos from the 2009 gathering in Washington

Eristalis hirta - male

Eristalis hirta - Male
Mt. Pinos summit area, elev. ~ 2690 m, Kern County, California, USA
July 6, 2012
det. Jim Hogue.

Images of this individual: tag all
Eristalis hirta - male Eristalis hirta - male

I have just had an email from
I have just had an email from Martin Hauser and based on the small pterostigma, he thinks this E. arbustorum.

If Martin is correct,
then this is not the specimen I think I netted right after this photo, and subsequently took GPS coordinates for the label. I didn't check my photos against the specimen, so this will be on my menu next time I'm at CSUN. On the other hand, there isn't much difference in size of pterostigma when comparing the two species. If anything, that of arbustorum looks a bit bigger / longer. Anyway, this can be resolved..

I have taken a second look at
I have taken a second look at the pterostigma at x400% and though not that clear it appears there is no infuscation beyond and it does look squarish.
E.arbustorum pterostigma looks bigger because of the infuscation. The hind metatarsus doesn`t look inflated, which is ovious in arbustorum male.So you are right. This is Eristalis hirta. Sorry for doubting you.

Hartmut, I `m not bothered wh
Hartmut, I `m not bothered whether I`m right or wrong but hope I can improve any identification key if it is lacking. I no longer have my collection to check specimens. Maybe you can check to see if there are any black spines along the antero-ventral surface of the hind tarsi of your Eristalis.

When the second image you add
When the second image you added is blown up, the so called frontal stripe is not glossy and doesn`t reach to the base of the antennae; white frosting can be seen between the antennae. The glossy median stripe should be for the entire length of the face. The black markings on the abdomen are the same as two pictures you have already posted as E. arbustorum.
See your images and other similar images.

and and and and and

Looked at the actual specimen this morning -
When you have the specimens in front of you, even before putting them under the scope, its clear as a bell.
When I posted my photos it was not for the purpose of being determined from the image, but as a record for where and when this fly was found. No question about it, this fly is E. hirta, a rather variable species especially in the degree of yellow on the abdomen and legs. (see Telford, 1970).
We do have records of arbustorum for L.A. County, but hirta is the one most frequently found here.
I suggest not to read too much into photos.

I have looked at few keys an
I have looked at a few keys and they all show Eristalis hirta to have the TARSI on the middle leg dark and concolorous. If you have the specimen,take some frontal pictures of the face.

I think you're asking a bit too much -
This fly is in the Entomology Collection at Cal. State Northridge, and has been identified by Dr. James N. Hogue.
You're welcome to look at the collection.

Unfortunately I can`t travel
Unfortunately I can`t travel from Manitoba to Cal.State Northridge. Is Dr. James N. Hogue aware of my comments.?

Yes, we discussed it -
and looked just in case we had made a mistake.

There is no black frontal str
There is no black frontal stripe. Face totally dusted. This is Eristalis arbustorum.

Photos can be deceiving,
especially when dealing with similar looking insects. Note this male's head is slightly turned, and we see only part of the face. This fly was keyed by Jim Hogue from specimen. I took only four photos in the field before netting the fly. I'll submit a crop of another photo of the same fly in a few minutes.
I wish it had been E. arbustorum, but hirta is what I find most of the time in our mountains.


I now agree this is Eristalis hirta
I now agree this is Eristalis hirta.

Why isn`t this E.arbustorum?
Why isn`t this E.arbustorum?
Eristalis hirta has uniform coloured tarsi

Not so -
But there are other characters to look at, one of which is of course what the face looks like.
From the beginning I should have referred you to the following:
Manual of Nearctic Diptera
Vol. II, 713
Syrphidae by J.R. Vockeroth and F.C. Thompson
Eristalis (Eoseristalis Kanervo), 741
17 spp.; widespread; Curran 1930a, Telford 1970 (both as part of Eristalis)
Curran, C.H. 1930a. New species of Eristalinae with notes ((Syrphidae, Diptera). Am. Mus. Novit. 411: 1-27.
Telford, H.S. 1970. Eristalis (Diptera: Syrphidae) from America North of Mexico. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 1201-1210.

That`s great Hartmut. That re
That`s great Hartmut. That really makes a difference. I`m glad that anomaly of the tarsi has been resolved.
I have changed my mind after further study. This is Eristalis hirta. Sorry for doubting you.

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