---

Turk, Side, sand dunas-pine forest.
Probably Euthycera stricta, but genitalia shuold be investigate:(

---

1. I meaned Eu. strictica.
2. But it isn't E. strictica. I'm 95% sure it is
Euthycera stricticaria, much less known species!

---

Hello Nikita

Misspeling, I think E. stictica (Fabricius, 1805) ?

Louis

---

Yes Louis, misspeling, thank you.
But correct is:
Euthycera sticticaria (Mayer 1953) East Mediterranian species with long antennae 2-d.
Nikita

---

dorsal

---

Hello Nikita,
I think your first idea, ie E. stictica is the correct ID for these reasons :
- lunule and frontal vitta well marked ;
- 3d antennal segment about the same length as 2nd and not so rounded (as in E. sticticaria).
It's just my opinion, I can be wrong...

Regards.

---

Stephane,
May be, may be not.
Looking at collected flies it seems to me that antennae is for sticticaria. But of course, it requires to compare with real E. stictica. In Moscow Zool museum there are several specimens of stictica with det. label of R.Rozko?n?, so it is a matter of short time and next week I'll write real ID with help of 6-th sternite:D
So, a bien tot!
Nikita

---

Well , at my opinion, situation in Euthycera genus isn?t satisfactory (as well as in Sciomyzidae family, I think).
1. Euthycera stictica-sticticaria
According Vala:
E.stictica - very small face spot and antII = antIII
E.sticticaria ? ?normal? face spot and antII > antIII
According Rozkosny, on the contrary:
E.stictica ? ?normal? face spot and antII > antIII
E.sticticaria - very small face spot and antII = antIII
According Rivosecchi:
E.stictica ? small spot of anterior orbital seta (in text ? ?ventral? or seta(?))
E.sticticaria - big spot of anterior orbital seta
Illustrations of genitalia looks also different to use practicaly.
According Vala most ID of E.stictica-group are doubtfull, material is always fragmental and nobody can realy compare it.
Material in Mosc Zool Museum determinated by Dr. Rozkosny (as usualy without other material to compare with) as E.stictica consists of 2 spp from North Caucasus and 8 spp collected by Andrey Ozerov in Middle Asia. Serias of 2 spp corresponds with my serias (of 19 spp), Middle Asian spp looks rather different.
2. So, I think that the best possible ID is so far Euthycera cf. stictica, as Stephane proposed.
At least lunule is large...

---

Thanks a lot Nikita for this synthesis.
It seems indeed to be a complex group like there are in others families.

Regards,

---

"It seems indeed to be a complex group like there are in others families"...
... or one old good Fabricius's species divided into several doubtful species without sufficient reasons;)