---

Hello,
Here is a fly encountered in the mid-mountains, resting on a rock.
According to its wing venation and the 4 post-sutural dc setae, it should be a Muscidae.
It could be a Thrichops, one of the mountain Muscidae.
We cannot see a PD setae on tibia 3, but it could be broken or hidden among the other setae.
What do you think please?
Location: East of the Pyrenees (France), altitude 1600m, date: November 3, 2024, insect size: about 10 mm


ANDRE LABETAA : France : Montferrer : 66150 : 03/11/2024
Altitude : 1635 m - Taille : 10 mm environ ?
Réf. : 351890


ANDRE LABETAA : France : Montferrer : 66150 : 03/11/2024
Altitude : 1635 m - Taille : 10 mm environ ?
Réf. : 351891

Tibia 3 :


ANDRE LABETAA : France : Montferrer : 66150 : 03/11/2024
Altitude : 1635 m - Taille : 10 mm environ
Réf. : 352199

---

Hello, a response to this post please?

---

I overlooked your thread. It is Helina evecta.

---

Thank you very much Nikita !
We had discarded this species because we thought the transverse veins were not shaded enough.
|t

---

Hello,
Couldn't it be Helina annosa instead?
The ventral setae of femur 3 are present only on the apical third and are shorter than the width of the femur. Furthermore, it seems that there are more apical setae on tibia 3 than in Helina evecta?

---

Hello,
In addition to my previous message, the chaetotaxy of the legs seems to me to be consistent with what is expected for Helina annosa:
- foretibia with a posterior setae: OK
- middle tibia with 3 to 5 posterior setae: OK (at least 4)
- hind femur with front setae on the apical half: OK
- ♂ hind tibia with 6 to 10 front setae and 2 to 4 rear setae and a row of posterior setae: OK (at least 6 front, at least 2 rear, row of p)