57761382
ˆê¡‚̃nƒG‚É‚àŒÜ•ª‚Ì‘å˜a°E‰ü
[ƒgƒbƒv‚É–ß‚é] [’Êí•\Ž¦] [ƒAƒ‹ƒoƒ€] [—¯ˆÓŽ–€] [ƒ[ƒhŒŸõ] [‰ß‹ŽƒƒO] [‹Œ‰ß‹ŽƒƒO] [ŠÇ——p]
1: •s–¾‚ÈEpistrophe (5) / 2: ƒjƒZƒWƒ‡ƒEƒUƒ“ƒPƒCH (3) / 3: ‹»–¡[‚¢—L•Ù—Þ (4) / 4: ƒAƒVƒ}ƒ_ƒ‰ƒuƒ†ˆŸ‘®H (2) / 5: ‚S–‡ãÀ‚̃nƒGH (4) / 6: ƒ„ƒhƒŠƒoƒG‚Ì’‡ŠÔ‚¾‚ÆŽv‚¤‚Ì‚Å‚·‚ª (2) / 7: ƒKƒKƒ“ƒ{—Þ‚Ì—c’Ž‚Å‚µ‚傤‚©H (6) / 8: ƒgƒQƒqƒƒqƒ‰ƒ^ƒAƒu‚Å‚µ‚傤‚©H (2) / 9: ‹ž“s•{‚Å“¾‚ç‚ꂽƒVƒ‡ƒEƒWƒ‡ƒEƒoƒG (5) / 10: –[‘”¼“‡ŠC•l‚̃cƒ‹ƒMƒAƒu‰Èi•s–¾ŽíH) (3) / 11: •xŽmŽR‚̃Aƒu (2) / 12: ƒNƒVƒcƒmƒAƒu‰È‚ɂ‚¢‚Ä (2) / 13: Eupachygaster tarsalisƒƒX? (1) / 14: ƒlƒOƒƒNƒTƒAƒuH‚Ì”²‚¯Šk (7) / 15: ƒ~ƒYƒAƒu‰ÈH•s–¾Ží‚ɂ‚¢‚Ä (5) / 16: ƒnƒiƒAƒu‰È•s–¾Ží (3) / 17: Choerades amurensis‚Å‚µ‚傤‚©H (6) / 18: Tabanus‘®H (2) / 19: –³‘è (2) / 20: –³‘è (3) /


[ Žw’èƒRƒƒ“ƒg (No.2033) ‚ÌŠÖ˜AƒXƒŒƒbƒh‚ð•\Ž¦‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚Ü‚·B ]

Syrphidae “ŠeŽÒFXespok “Še“úF2005/12/19(Mon) 12:22 No.2033  ˆø—p 
Ichige-sam,

http://xespok.net/gallery/Milesiinae/DipteraB_Milesiinae_1000032012

I think this can not be T. apiforme, because this image does not match with

http://homepage3.nifty.com/syrphidae1/tribe1/milesiin2.htm

at your page. (There is a typos apiform -> apiforme)

The most notable difference are the light tarsi on the front legs, but the overall shape and pattern does not match either.

Maybe T. bombylans?

Thanks for the lots of inofrmation, I try to update my pages with them, but I am quite busy now, I'll move back to Europe tomorrow.

Xespok

Xespok

Re: Syrphidae “ŠeŽÒFIchige “Še“úF2005/12/19(Mon) 23:52 No.2034  ˆø—p 
Hello.

I had made the mistake in typewrite a scientific name again. It corrects later.

There is color variation in the leg of Temnostoma apiforme.
Possibly it may be another species.
I am investigating the question now.

Abdominal form is with my specimen bend.

Temnostoma bombylans and T. nitobei is a even slender species, with more yellowish abdominal bands and the anterior portion of wing has a remarkably brown pattern.

By the way, the photograph which you took is beautiful and interest.

ˆ— ‹LŽ–No ˆÃ؃L[

- Joyful Note -
- Antispam Version -