Thread subject: Diptera.info :: Rhagionidae - Rhagio vitripennis
Posted by Frank Koehler on 04-10-2006 06:50
#1
Good morning. These are my photos of (common) Rhagionidae? frome the Rhineland. I would be glad to add some names to the photo folders and upload to the gallery here. Unfurtunally the upload doesn?t work with my browser. Best regards Frank
#6687 Germany / Rheinland-Pfalz: Gerolstein, Forest Eischeid, 600 m, VII.2004
#6714 Germany / NRW: Bornheim-Waldorf, V.2006
#6885 Germany / NRW: Swisttal-Heimertzheim, V.2006
Edited by Frank Koehler on 19-10-2006 19:32
Posted by crex on 04-10-2006 07:55
#2
Have you read the
FAQ about submitting photos for the gallery? I also think someone mentioned that the file extension must be lower case.
Posted by Paul Beuk on 04-10-2006 08:00
#3
Not to mention the fact that if you tried to upload 6687-6690-dip-rhagionidae-rhagio-scolopaceus-eischeid-030704.jpg under that very same name, then probably upload failed because that name is too long. ;)
Posted by Zeegers on 04-10-2006 08:46
#4
Back to the content:
Looks like Rhagio vitripennis
Theo
Posted by Frank Koehler on 04-10-2006 15:29
#5
Thank you for your answers:
@crex & Paul: There is a misunderstanding, i said "upload to the gallery". I studied the faq, the extension is jpg, the files names are not to long for any internet server (I didn?t want to burn a CD-Rom), there are no forbidden characters for unix servers, the file size was optimized by filtering and saving with NeatImage (about 50k).
I have a lot of well identified fly photos (Tachinidae, Tabanbidae, Syrphidae, Tipulidae, Asilidae ...) and wanted to start uploading some good images to the gallery (not forum). The upload form works properly, but I can?t see the photos in the gallery :( I thoughth, it would be a good idea to send a contribution, not only questions ;)
[Edit: B) There was a time lag of a few days. The photos are online now. Rewieved by the administrator? You should mentioon this in your faq ;)]
@Zeegers: Three locations, same species? The third specimen is (population was) larger the second: 6714 = 8,4 mm, 6885 = 13,8 mm.
Best regards
Frank
Edited by Frank Koehler on 04-10-2006 15:34
Posted by crex on 04-10-2006 15:37
#6
Frank Koehler wrote:
...
The upload form works properly, but I can?t see the photos in the gallery :(
...
Gallery submissions are moderated by Paul Beuk! You will not see the photos until Paul has approved them.
Posted by Frank Koehler on 04-10-2006 16:08
#7
@crex: :) we have been typing simultaneous.
That is ok , but should be mentioned in the faq. I do the same im my galleries - to avoid swarms of ladybirds. Greetings Frank
Posted by Zeegers on 04-10-2006 16:20
#8
Back to the content again (I repeat myself)
My ID is based on the second image.
In the other images, it is difficult to see the wing, which is needed or at least very helpful.
I guess Rh. vitripennis is common around your place. On the other hand, Rh. scolopaceus is probably at least as common. I cannot rule out Rh. scolopaceus from lateral view. Maybe a real expert can.
Theo
Posted by Frank Koehler on 04-10-2006 18:10
#9
Thanks Theo, unfortunately I can offer only wing details of the large species (6885):
Posted by Zeegers on 04-10-2006 19:20
#10
Thanks Frank
This helps
The last one would be Rh. vitripennis as well, as is the fourth one.
So most of the material would be Rh. vitripennis in my opinion.
The other might be Rh. vitripennis as well, might on the other hand be Rh. scolopaceus.
My guess is that it's all vitripennis, but gut-feelings are not so scientific, are they !
Theo