From bwakkie at syrphidae.com  Fri Jan  1 13:59:44 2021
From: bwakkie at syrphidae.com (Bastiaan)
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:59:44 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage
Message-ID: <f3d53bf0ff7313d03f85d9cafbda451d@syrphidae.com>

Hi all,

Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)

A new years question:

I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there a 
general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?

I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the + 
specific name without the gender part in the database so I never have to 
change it again. Then I will link them to their current accepted parent. 
Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can create the current 
accepted name.

I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does not 
effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?

As example where the specific_name changes:

Musca fasciolata  --> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria

In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned names 
are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into different websites 
gbif inaturalist etc.)

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Bastiaan


From botsander at gmail.com  Sun Jan  3 10:35:58 2021
From: botsander at gmail.com (Sander Bot)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2021 11:35:58 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] pdf request
Message-ID: <CADxnVEue+PgNivG4h_Hvf0QnwJjFOnRC-XWzNwL+24RquXdF5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

First I wish everybody a healthy and very nice 2021!

I have a pdf request:
Speight, M.C.D. 1988 Some observations on the Liechtenstein insect fauna
and its conservation, with particular reference to the Diptera.
Ber.Bot.-Zool.Ges. Liechtenstein- Sargans-Werdenberg, 17: 55-66.

Best wishes and many thanks in advance,

Sander
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210103/9b67284a/attachment.html>

From gerard_pennards at hotmail.com  Sun Jan  3 12:32:44 2021
From: gerard_pennards at hotmail.com (Gerard Pennards)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2021 12:32:44 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] Speight 1988 Liechtenstein
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1609675204.19390.syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
References: <mailman.5.1609675204.19390.syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <AM8P194MB1172955681A386C32574C3F986D30@AM8P194MB1172.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi Sander, best wishes for the new year!
Here you are!
Kind regards,
Gerard

________________________________
Van: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> namens syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Verzonden: zondag 3 januari 2021 13:00
Aan: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Onderwerp: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 2

Send Syrphidae mailing list submissions to
        syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
        syrphidae-owner at lists.nottingham.ac.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Syrphidae digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. pdf request (Sander Bot)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2021 11:35:58 +0100
From: Sander Bot <botsander at gmail.com>
To: hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Syrphidae] pdf request
Message-ID:
        <CADxnVEue+PgNivG4h_Hvf0QnwJjFOnRC-XWzNwL+24RquXdF5Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

First I wish everybody a healthy and very nice 2021!

I have a pdf request:
Speight, M.C.D. 1988 Some observations on the Liechtenstein insect fauna
and its conservation, with particular reference to the Diptera.
Ber.Bot.-Zool.Ges. Liechtenstein- Sargans-Werdenberg, 17: 55-66.

Best wishes and many thanks in advance,

Sander
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210103/9b67284a/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Syrphidae mailing list
Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae


End of Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 2
*****************************************



This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210103/419e4d35/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Speight_1988_Liechtenstein.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 5514037 bytes
Desc: Speight_1988_Liechtenstein.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210103/419e4d35/attachment-0001.pdf>

From syrphidae at centrum.cz  Mon Jan  4 11:57:00 2021
From: syrphidae at centrum.cz (syrphidae at centrum.cz)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:57:00 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: =?utf-8?q?Syrphidae_Digest=2C_Vol_169=2C_Issue_1?=
Message-ID: <20210104125700.150A41A6@centrum.cz>

Dear Bastiaan,
the rule for suffix of latin species names is not so clear. Sometimes also species name is noun with their own gender.
So It is not possible to use gender of generic name, for example see my commetns below.
However Musca generic name is femininum as the generic name Leucozona, so Musca laternatia is correct.
?
With best wishes Libor
?
?
For exampel here is my comments to Parasyrphus lineola name:
The Latin name of this species is often erroneously cited as ?Parasyrphus lineolus? in recent literature also in Speight (2018). But Latin word "lineola" is a Latin noun that means "a little line". This Latin noun has its own feminine gender according to Latin grammar. So it is not possible to use this Latin feminine noun with masculine suffix as it is used for adjectives.
?
______________________________________________________________
 > Od: syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
 > Komu: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
 > Datum: 02.01.2021 13:00
 > P?edm?t: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
 >
Send Syrphidae mailing list submissions to
 syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
 
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae>
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
 
 You can reach the person managing the list at
 syrphidae-owner at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
 
 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than "Re: Contents of Syrphidae digest..."
 
 
 Today's Topics:
 
 ? 1. genera gender list and database storage (Bastiaan)
 
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:59:44 +0100
 From: Bastiaan <bwakkie at syrphidae.com>
 To: Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
 Subject: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage
 Message-ID: <f3d53bf0ff7313d03f85d9cafbda451d at syrphidae.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
 
 Hi all,
 
 Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)
 
 A new years question:
 
 I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there a 
 general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?
 
 I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the + 
 specific name without the gender part in the database so I never have to 
 change it again. Then I will link them to their current accepted parent. 
 Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can create the current 
 accepted name.
 
 I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does not 
 effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?
 
 As example where the specific_name changes:
 
 Musca fasciolata ?--> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
 Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria
 
 In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned names 
 are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into different websites 
 gbif inaturalist etc.)
 
 Any thoughts on this?
 
 Cheers,
 Bastiaan
 
 
 
 ------------------------------
 
 _______________________________________________
 Syrphidae mailing list
 Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
 http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae>
 
 
 End of Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
 *****************************************
 
 
 
 This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
 and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
 message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
 attachment. 
 
 Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
 necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
 communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
 where permitted by law.
 
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210104/b30723e2/attachment.html>

From m_reemer at hotmail.com  Mon Jan  4 12:54:19 2021
From: m_reemer at hotmail.com (Menno Reemer)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:54:19 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <20210104125700.150A41A6@centrum.cz>
References: <20210104125700.150A41A6@centrum.cz>
Message-ID: <AM0PR10MB2498C19C857ADAB793EAA489F5D20@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Two more examples to illustrate Libor's argument:
Cheilosia himantopus ('strap foot') -> sometimes erroneously named 'himantopa'.
Sphaerophoria philanthus ('flower lover') -> sometimes erroneously named 'philantha'.
In both cases (as well as in Libor's example of Parasyrphus lineola) the specific epithets are nouns in apposition, which implicates that their suffix is not to be conjugated.
So, in order to do such things correctly, you need to know the grammatical nature of the species name...
(BTW: I am not at all an expert in these matters, but these are just some examples I happen to know.)
Best wishes,
Menno

________________________________
From: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of syrphidae at centrum.cz <syrphidae at centrum.cz>
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 11:57 AM
To: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1


Dear Bastiaan,

the rule for suffix of latin species names is not so clear. Sometimes also species name is noun with their own gender.

So It is not possible to use gender of generic name, for example see my commetns below.

However Musca generic name is femininum as the generic name Leucozona, so Musca laternatia is correct.



With best wishes Libor





For exampel here is my comments to Parasyrphus lineola name:

The Latin name of this species is often erroneously cited as ?Parasyrphus lineolus? in recent literature also in Speight (2018). But Latin word "lineola" is a Latin noun that means "a little line". This Latin noun has its own feminine gender according to Latin grammar. So it is not possible to use this Latin feminine noun with masculine suffix as it is used for adjectives.



______________________________________________________________
> Od: syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> Komu: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> Datum: 02.01.2021 13:00
> P?edm?t: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
>

Send Syrphidae mailing list submissions to
syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
syrphidae-owner at lists.nottingham.ac.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Syrphidae digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. genera gender list and database storage (Bastiaan)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:59:44 +0100
From: Bastiaan <bwakkie at syrphidae.com>
To: Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage
Message-ID: <f3d53bf0ff7313d03f85d9cafbda451d at syrphidae.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Hi all,

Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)

A new years question:

I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there a
general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?

I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the +
specific name without the gender part in the database so I never have to
change it again. Then I will link them to their current accepted parent.
Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can create the current
accepted name.

I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does not
effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?

As example where the specific_name changes:

Musca fasciolata  --> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria

In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned names
are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into different websites
gbif inaturalist etc.)

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Bastiaan



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Syrphidae mailing list
Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae


End of Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
*****************************************



This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.





This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210104/f82cc8d2/attachment.html>

From eckvana at xs4all.nl  Mon Jan  4 14:47:22 2021
From: eckvana at xs4all.nl (Andre van Eck)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:47:22 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR10MB2498C19C857ADAB793EAA489F5D20@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <20210104125700.150A41A6@centrum.cz>
	<AM0PR10MB2498C19C857ADAB793EAA489F5D20@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <710961983.10657.1609771642588@webmail-nieuw.xs4all.nl>

How nice would it be when the European Red List of Hoverflies will have all the correctly spelled names in use. 

cheers, happy 2021! 
Andr?



>     Op 04-01-2021 13:54 schreef Menno Reemer <m_reemer at hotmail.com>:
> 
> 
>     Two more examples to illustrate Libor's argument: 
>     Cheilosia himantopus ('strap foot') -> sometimes erroneously named 'himantopa'. 
>     Sphaerophoria philanthus ('flower lover') -> sometimes erroneously named 'philantha'. 
>     In both cases (as well as in Libor's example of Parasyrphus lineola) the specific epithets are nouns in apposition, which implicates that their suffix is not to be conjugated. 
>     So, in order to do such things correctly, you need to know the grammatical nature of the species name...
>     (BTW: I am not at all an expert in these matters, but these are just some examples I happen to know.)
>     Best wishes,
>     Menno
> 
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------
>     From: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of syrphidae at centrum.cz <syrphidae at centrum.cz>
>     Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 11:57 AM
>     To: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>     Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
> 
>     Dear Bastiaan,
>     the rule for suffix of latin species names is not so clear. Sometimes also species name is noun with their own gender.
>     So It is not possible to use gender of generic name, for example see my commetns below.
>     However Musca generic name is femininum as the generic name Leucozona, so Musca laternatia is correct.
> 
>     With best wishes Libor
> 
> 
>     For exampel here is my comments to Parasyrphus lineola name:
>     The Latin name of this species is often erroneously cited as ?Parasyrphus lineolus? in recent literature also in Speight (2018). But Latin word "lineola" is a Latin noun that means "a little line". This Latin noun has its own feminine gender according to Latin grammar. So it is not possible to use this Latin feminine noun with masculine suffix as it is used for adjectives.
> 
>     ______________________________________________________________
>     > Od: syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>     > Komu: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>     > Datum: 02.01.2021 13:00
>     > P?edm?t: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
>     >
>     Send Syrphidae mailing list submissions to
>     syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> 
>     To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>     http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>     or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>     syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> 
>     You can reach the person managing the list at
>     syrphidae-owner at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> 
>     When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>     than "Re: Contents of Syrphidae digest..."
> 
> 
>     Today's Topics:
> 
>       1. genera gender list and database storage (Bastiaan)
> 
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Message: 1
>     Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:59:44 +0100
>     From: Bastiaan <bwakkie at syrphidae.com>
>     To: Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>     Subject: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage
>     Message-ID: <f3d53bf0ff7313d03f85d9cafbda451d at syrphidae.com>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)
> 
>     A new years question:
> 
>     I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there a
>     general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?
> 
>     I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the +
>     specific name without the gender part in the database so I never have to
>     change it again. Then I will link them to their current accepted parent.
>     Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can create the current
>     accepted name.
> 
>     I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does not
>     effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?
> 
>     As example where the specific_name changes:
> 
>     Musca fasciolata  --> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
>     Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria
> 
>     In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned names
>     are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into different websites
>     gbif inaturalist etc.)
> 
>     Any thoughts on this?
> 
>     Cheers,
>     Bastiaan
> 
> 
> 
>     ------------------------------
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Syrphidae mailing list
>     Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>     http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
> 
> 
>     End of Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 1
>     *****************************************
> 
> 
> 
>     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>     message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>     attachment.
> 
>     Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>     necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>     communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>     where permitted by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>     message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>     attachment. 
> 
>     Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>     necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>     communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
>     where permitted by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>     message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>     attachment. 
> 
>     Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>     necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>     communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
>     where permitted by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Syrphidae mailing list
>     Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>     http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210104/d3fefc24/attachment-0001.html>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Mon Jan  4 19:42:15 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 19:42:15 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] FW:  genera gender list and database storage
In-Reply-To: <10a1a080-ec78-edf7-90bc-0625ebadab79@gmail.com>
References: <f3d53bf0ff7313d03f85d9cafbda451d@syrphidae.com>
	<10a1a080-ec78-edf7-90bc-0625ebadab79@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB6249537AA674D3E95841E54ABED20@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>



From: Douglas Yanega [mailto:dyanega at gmail.com]
Sent: 04 January 2021 19:20
To: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage

On 1/1/21 5:59 AM, Bastiaan wrote:
Hi all,

Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)

A new years question:

I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there a general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?

I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the + specific name without the gender part in the database so I never have to change it again. Then I will link them to their current accepted parent. Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can create the current accepted name.

I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does not effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?

As example where the specific_name changes:

Musca fasciolata  --> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria

In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned names are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into different websites gbif inaturalist etc.)



As a Commissioner of the ICZN, I can perhaps offer some help here:

(1) If you do not have a hard copy of the Code - and even if you DO - the most up-to-date version is the online version, accessible here:

https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature/the-code-online/

PLEASE NOTE: the online version incorporates a small number of significant changes that have occurred since the last hard copy version printed in 1999, so it is generally recommended to refer to the online version.

(2) The nomenclatural gender of a genus is often, but not always, easily inferred. Sometimes, upon investigation, it proves to be in direct conflict with prevailing practice. The rules governing the methodology for determining the gender of a genus are given in Article 30. Note in particular the exceptions in Art. 30.1.4, some of which are arbitrary, and not strictly in keeping with grammar (e.g., how to treat names ending in "-odes").

(3) The nomenclatural status of a species epithet is governed by Article 31, and may be rather difficult to establish with certainty; taxonomists commonly make errors. A case in point is the name you refer to above: "laternarius" is not an adjective, it is a noun. Therefore, the correct formation under the ICZN is "Leucozona laternarius"; this is true, and must be adhered to, regardless of prevailing usage by dipterists. Technically speaking, under the Code, variant spellings that are variant only in the sense of gender are NOT different spellings. In other words, if people are presently using "Leucozona laternaria" the change to "Leucozona laternarius" is not a change in spelling; it does not require any annotation, it does not have any authorship, and (perhaps most importantly) the spelling "laternaria" cannot be maintained by invoking any Code provisions that preserve incorrect spellings in prevailing usage - because "laternaria" is the same name as "laternarius", and not an incorrect spelling as the Code defines it. If one were, say, "laternarius" and the original publication turned out to be "lanternarius", then those WOULD be variant spellings, and prevailing usage could be invoked.

(4) At present, there are errors and omissions in all of the print and online resources that offer lists or catalogs of names (for all organisms, not just syrphids). The number of errors in the genders of genera represent a trivially tiny proportion, mostly names that are neuter but ending in "-a" (e.g. all names ending in "-gramma" or "-soma"). However, the number of errors where taxonomists have treated epithets that are nouns as adjectives (or the converse) are a small but significant proportion. As such, if you want to compile an accurate list, it will require some effort on your part to find and correct the existing errors in the available resources.

(5) The primary source of contentious cases among species epithets are names that have the potential to be either a noun or an adjective: under Art. 31.2.2, you MUST consult the original description to see if the author provided explicit evidence that such a name was intended to be an adjective, and if there is no such evidence, all such names must be treated under the Code as nouns. In some cases, this can be easily checked, especially if the name is Latin in origin and well-known to exist as both noun and adjective, such as "pumilus" (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pumilus). In some such cases, taxonomists ignore the Code, and this could create problems (e.g., no one EVER treats the epithet "alba" as a noun, even though this is a genuine Latin usage: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alba#Latin). Yet other cases, especially those involving words from Greek that have been Latinized, can be incredibly confusing and contentious. For example, the term "cephala" is a Latinized Greek noun, and words ending in "-cephala" can be considered noun phrases, but could also be argued to be adjectival under some conditions. There is no universal agreement on this, most particularly because the Latinization of Greek is not a traditional practice except by taxonomists; we cannot consult non-taxonomic sources for an objective assessment, and taxonomists cannot come to a consensus. To continue the example, some taxonomists will consider the endings "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" to all be adjectival, always. Other taxonomists will treat "-cephala" as a noun, but "-cephalus" and "-cephalum" as adjectival. Other taxonomists will look at the prefix, and if the prefix is Latin, then "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" are nouns, but if the prefix is Greek, then "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" are adjectival (e.g., "caeruleocephalus" is a noun but "cyanocephalus" is an adjective). Still other taxonomists, such as myself, trying to follow the Code, will use the evidence of disagreement to claim that such names MIGHT be either nouns or adjectives, depending on who you ask, and therefore choose to apply Article 31.2.2 to ANY such word; under this interpretation they can only be adjectival if the original description explicitly stated that the name was adjectival; otherwise, they are all nouns by default. I will point out, with some regret, that consensus does not even exist among the Commissioners as to how and when 31.2.2 should be applied.

(6) I would encourage people who are concerned with the potential for grammatical confusion to destabilize the spelling of names to consider the following points: (A) there is a precedent, implemented by John Oswald at TAMU, to make available an exhaustive online catalog of names in which every single genus has its gender established following the Code, and in which all of the species epithets are stated to be either declinable (adjectival) or not, and showing the different correct gender-matching spellings whenever the name is declinable. He has done this for the entire superorder Neuropterida, singlehandedly, demonstrating the feasibility of providing a definitive resource: https://lacewing.tamu.edu/SpeciesCatalog/Main (B) there is a mechanism presently embedded in the Code under Article 79 called the "List of Available Names" (a.k.a. LAN), by which a group of taxonomic experts can establish their own determination of the parameters of all names for their taxonomic group, even if that determination may in some cases conflict with the Code (as embodied in Art. 79.4.1: "A name occurring in an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology is deemed be an available name and to have the spelling, date, and authorship recorded in the List (despite any evidence to the contrary)."). The point is that if the Syrphid community wants to have their own catalog, adhering to existing practice (not necessarily always adhering to the Code), there IS a mechanism available to accomplish this. (C) taken together, you have two basic options: if you follow Oswald's example, you can create and maintain an online resource that people studying syrphids can use, and if everyone uses this source and ONLY this source, then even if it is not Code-compliant, at least the usage of names will be consistent. You can do this immediately, with no involvement from outside your community. You would not be the first or even second community adopting a practice that allows for stabilization of names but does not follow the Code. If you follow the LAN model, you can create a similar resource, but one that is by definition Code-compliant; the drawback is that it will take an absolute minimum of 5 years for the full external review process once the proposed List has been submitted to the Commission for consideration. I have personally made a similar recommendation to the lepidopterist community (who presently reject gender agreement in violation of the Code, but who, if they formalized it under a LAN, would have the Commission's formal support to continue this practice), and also to the herpetologist community (who presently suffer from a prolific self-publishing amateur whose works are technically Code-compliant but are being boycotted by the professional community, in violation of the Code, though if they implement a LAN they can render all his names permanently unavailable with the Commission's formal support).

(7) As a final aside I will note that as an entomology collection manager (with some 4 million specimens) I maintain a personal authority file of valid insect names, as part of our asset management. I have 210,254 species names presently recorded, and have personally screened 158,112 of these to determine which ones are definitively declinable (70,781), which ones are definitively not (77,368), and which ones will require examination of the original description under Art. 31.2.2 (9,963). It's tedious, but not impossible. Note that the proportion of names requiring examination of the original description is only 6% of the total. If I am correct that there are fewer than 7000 valid syrphid species names, you can expect only ~500 names that will need scrutiny, the vast majority of which should prove to be indeclinable because the original description gives no etymology at all. The remaining ~6500 can be screened within a week, if there is an existing compiled list of valid names. If you would be willing to trust my assessments, I would be willing to help with this, I have lots of practice. ;-)

Sincerely,

--

Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum

Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega

phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)

             https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html

  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness

        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210104/694d5966/attachment-0001.html>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Wed Jan  6 11:52:08 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 11:52:08 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] FW:  FW:  genera gender list and database storage
In-Reply-To: <41337cdb7f14792dcf76ac7bc112d0bd@wakkie.org>
References: <f3d53bf0ff7313d03f85d9cafbda451d@syrphidae.com>
	<10a1a080-ec78-edf7-90bc-0625ebadab79@gmail.com>
	<DB8PR06MB6249537AA674D3E95841E54ABED20@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
	<41337cdb7f14792dcf76ac7bc112d0bd@wakkie.org>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB62490C045ADDFAB4C5694291BED00@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: Bastiaan [mailto:bastiaan at wakkie.org] 
Sent: 06 January 2021 11:47
To: dyanega at gmail.com
Cc: Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Syrphidae] FW: genera gender list and database storage

Hi all,

Thank you very much all for your comments especially to Douglas for your 
extensive explanation of the ICZN Code and how other communities are 
dealing with it! I must admit I had to read the extensive explanation a 
couple of times to get a grasp of it though, but that's just me as I am 
more a visual person. I have to admit a list maintained by the community 
conform the Code is the ultimate goal for everyone here I presume.

As the groundbreaking work (in process) of Chris Thompson (the authors 
of both the ICZN Code and Systema Dipterorum (SD) and still the single 
maintainer of the Syrphid part) it is the best source available. All 
other websites (gbif etc.) use this as basis. I am not looking at 
replacing SD nor I feel qualified to do so but in order to serve a world 
list on syrphidae.com I am in need of a smooth way to link to SD which 
is very complex task in its current state.

The problem I am facing with SD is that record ID's are not consistent 
over updates. So basically I can only rely on text without ID's that 
link to a not always consistent (sometimes with not yet published rank 
changes) Valid names are without a record IDs, authors nor years and 
missing citations of any rank changes. This all makes it on my side very 
prone to a lot of interpretation errors.

What I have done so far:

1) Added a fixed UUID (Universally unique identifier) to all names I 
found in the copy of SD in December 2019. (Chis if you like to have 
those please let me know)
2) Linked programmatically all valid names, misspellings etc. to the 
correct UUID. This needs a lot of ironing to get this smooth though.
3) Linked the Family till Sub specific name hierarchy together to form 
one big tree.
4) Linked synonyms etc to the current accepted names

Most hours (and luckily these days I have some left) are spend on fixing 
errors in the parent-child and hierarchy relationships due unclear links 
within SD. The database contain roughly around 13000+ records and is 
basically Chris's work in SD combined with the phylogeny (also work in 
progress) spreadsheet found online + my own additions of some missing 
parts (All send to Chris btw).

About phylogeny is using PhyloCode (http://phylonames.org/) not a good 
idea?

Currently I am not yet able to compile the full hierarchical checklist 
from the family till subspecies level due to the errors mentioned above 
and difficulty linking species with gender variations back to their 
original name, hence my question to the community if there was a easy 
way to do this. I understand now it became even more tedious work but 
hey... it needs to be done at one point as I have 1000's of photos 
waiting to be connected to these UUID's for the new syrphidae.com and 
8Gb of literature (not publicly available for obvious reasons)

Help on administrating this on syrphidae.com would be greatly 
appreciated of course and I can provide the community access to it but 
before doing so I need first cutting some rough edges and make it dummy 
proof (no offense intended) as for now pure (recursive) SQL knowledge is 
needed to compile them. I have not yet made a web (form) based 
interaction with the database but if the community likes to participate 
I am happy to create that on syrphidae.com.

My dream is to eventually have a driving community (yes you!) running 
syrphidae.com in all its assets.

Let me know if there is interest in moving this forward ... quicker (as 
I am moving this way)

Cheers,
Bastiaan

Francis Gilbert schreef op 04-01-2021 20:42:
> FROM: Douglas Yanega [mailto:dyanega at gmail.com]
> SENT: 04 January 2021 19:20
> TO: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> SUBJECT: Re: [Syrphidae] genera gender list and database storage
> 
> On 1/1/21 5:59 AM, Bastiaan wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Happy new year (for whom it may concern ;-)
>> 
>> A new years question:
>> 
>> I am looking for a list of all genera with there gender. Or is there
>> a general rule I can interpret it from the genus name?
>> 
>> I like to keep only protonym (original combination) intact plus the
>> + specific name without the gender part in the database so I never
>> have to change it again. Then I will link them to their current
>> accepted parent. Based of the parent 'genus' name gender I can
>> create the current accepted name.
>> 
>> I guess from what I understood so far is that the subgenus name does
>> not effect the specific name? Like in Leucozona laternaria?
>> 
>> As example where the specific_name changes:
>> 
>> Musca fasciolata  --> Chrysotoxum fasciolatum
>> Musca laternarius --> Leucozona (Ischyrosyrphus) laternaria
>> 
>> In Systema Dipterorum for example all of the four above mentioned
>> names are stored. (and this on their turn slipped down into
>> different websites gbif inaturalist etc.)
> 
> As a Commissioner of the ICZN, I can perhaps offer some help here:
> 
> (1) If you do not have a hard copy of the Code - and even if you DO -
> the most up-to-date version is the online version, accessible here:
> 
> https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature/the-code-online/
> 
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: the online version incorporates a small number of
> significant changes that have occurred since the last hard copy
> version printed in 1999, so it is generally recommended to refer to
> the online version.
> 
> (2) The nomenclatural gender of a genus is often, but not always,
> easily inferred. Sometimes, upon investigation, it proves to be in
> direct conflict with prevailing practice. The rules governing the
> methodology for determining the gender of a genus are given in Article
> 30. Note in particular the exceptions in Art. 30.1.4, some of which
> are arbitrary, and not strictly in keeping with grammar (e.g., how to
> treat names ending in "-odes").
> 
> (3) The nomenclatural status of a species epithet is governed by
> Article 31, and may be rather difficult to establish with certainty;
> taxonomists COMMONLY make errors. A case in point is the name you
> refer to above: "laternarius" is not an adjective, it is a noun.
> Therefore, the correct formation under the ICZN is "Leucozona
> laternarius"; this is true, and must be adhered to, regardless of
> prevailing usage by dipterists. Technically speaking, under the Code,
> variant spellings that are VARIANT ONLY IN THE SENSE OF GENDER are NOT
> different spellings. In other words, if people are presently using
> "Leucozona laternaria" the change to "Leucozona laternarius" is NOT a
> change in spelling; it does not require any annotation, it does not
> have any authorship, and (perhaps most importantly) the spelling
> "laternaria" CANNOT be maintained by invoking any Code provisions that
> preserve incorrect spellings in prevailing usage - because
> "laternaria" is the SAME NAME as "laternarius", and not an incorrect
> spelling as the Code defines it. If one were, say, "laternarius" and
> the original publication turned out to be "lanternarius", then those
> WOULD be variant spellings, and prevailing usage could be invoked.
> 
> (4) At present, there are errors and omissions in all of the print and
> online resources that offer lists or catalogs of names (for all
> organisms, not just syrphids). The number of errors in the genders of
> genera represent a trivially tiny proportion, mostly names that are
> neuter but ending in "-a" (e.g. all names ending in "-gramma" or
> "-soma"). However, the number of errors where taxonomists have treated
> epithets that are nouns as adjectives (or the converse) are a SMALL
> BUT SIGNIFICANT proportion. As such, if you want to compile an
> ACCURATE list, it will require some effort on your part to find and
> correct the existing errors in the available resources.
> 
> (5) The primary source of contentious cases among species epithets are
> names that have the potential to be either a noun or an adjective:
> under Art. 31.2.2, you MUST consult the original description to see if
> the author provided explicit evidence that such a name was intended to
> be an adjective, and if there is no such evidence, all such names MUST
> be treated under the Code as nouns. In some cases, this can be easily
> checked, especially if the name is Latin in origin and well-known to
> exist as both noun and adjective, such as "pumilus" (see
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pumilus). In some such cases,
> taxonomists ignore the Code, and this could create problems (e.g., no
> one EVER treats the epithet "alba" as a noun, even though this is a
> genuine Latin usage: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alba#Latin). Yet
> other cases, ESPECIALLY those involving words from Greek that have
> been Latinized, can be incredibly confusing and contentious. For
> example, the term "cephala" is a Latinized Greek noun, and words
> ending in "-cephala" can be considered noun phrases, but could also be
> argued to be adjectival under some conditions. There is no universal
> agreement on this, most particularly because the Latinization of Greek
> is not a traditional practice except by taxonomists; we cannot consult
> non-taxonomic sources for an objective assessment, and taxonomists
> cannot come to a consensus. To continue the example, some taxonomists
> will consider the endings "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" to
> all be adjectival, always. Other taxonomists will treat "-cephala" as
> a noun, but "-cephalus" and "-cephalum" as adjectival. Other
> taxonomists will look at the prefix, and if the prefix is LATIN, then
> "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" are nouns, but if the prefix
> is GREEK, then "-cephala", "-cephalus", and "-cephalum" are adjectival
> (e.g., "caeruleocephalus" is a noun but "cyanocephalus" is an
> adjective). Still other taxonomists, such as myself, TRYING TO FOLLOW
> THE CODE, will use the evidence of disagreement to claim that such
> names MIGHT be either nouns or adjectives, _depending on who you ask_,
> and therefore choose to apply Article 31.2.2 to ANY such word; under
> this interpretation they can only be adjectival if the original
> description explicitly stated that the name was adjectival; otherwise,
> they are all nouns by default. I will point out, with some regret,
> that consensus does not even exist among the Commissioners as to how
> and when 31.2.2 should be applied.
> 
> (6) I would encourage people who are concerned with the potential for
> grammatical confusion to destabilize the spelling of names to consider
> the following points: (A) there is a precedent, implemented by John
> Oswald at TAMU, to make available an exhaustive online catalog of
> names in which every single genus has its gender established following
> the Code, and in which all of the species epithets are stated to be
> either declinable (adjectival) or not, and showing the different
> correct gender-matching spellings whenever the name is declinable. He
> has done this for the entire superorder Neuropterida, singlehandedly,
> demonstrating the feasibility of providing a definitive resource:
> https://lacewing.tamu.edu/SpeciesCatalog/Main (B) there is a mechanism
> presently embedded in the Code under Article 79 called the "List of
> Available Names" (a.k.a. LAN), by which a group of taxonomic experts
> can establish their OWN determination of the parameters of all names
> for their taxonomic group, EVEN IF that determination may in some
> cases conflict with the Code (as embodied in Art. 79.4.1: "A name
> occurring in an adopted Part of the_ List of Available Names in
> Zoology_ is deemed be an available name and to have the spelling,
> date, and authorship recorded in the _List_ (DESPITE ANY EVIDENCE TO
> THE CONTRARY)."). The point is that if the Syrphid community wants to
> have their own catalog, adhering to existing practice (not necessarily
> always adhering to the Code), there IS a mechanism available to
> accomplish this. (C) taken together, you have two basic options: if
> you follow Oswald's example, you can create and maintain an online
> resource that people studying syrphids can use, and if EVERYONE uses
> this source and ONLY this source, then even if it is not
> Code-compliant, at least the usage of names will be consistent. You
> can do this immediately, with no involvement from outside your
> community. You would not be the first or even second community
> adopting a practice that allows for stabilization of names but does
> not follow the Code. If you follow the LAN model, you can create a
> similar resource, but one that is BY DEFINITION Code-compliant; the
> drawback is that it will take an absolute minimum of 5 years for the
> full external review process once the proposed List has been submitted
> to the Commission for consideration. I have personally made a similar
> recommendation to the lepidopterist community (who presently reject
> gender agreement in violation of the Code, but who, if they formalized
> it under a LAN, would have the Commission's formal support to continue
> this practice), and also to the herpetologist community (who presently
> suffer from a prolific self-publishing amateur whose works are
> technically Code-compliant but are being boycotted by the professional
> community, in violation of the Code, though if they implement a LAN
> they can render all his names permanently unavailable with the
> Commission's formal support).
> 
> (7) As a final aside I will note that as an entomology collection
> manager (with some 4 million specimens) I maintain a personal
> authority file of valid insect names, as part of our asset management.
> I have 210,254 species names presently recorded, and have personally
> screened 158,112 of these to determine which ones are definitively
> declinable (70,781), which ones are definitively not (77,368), and
> which ones will require examination of the original description under
> Art. 31.2.2 (9,963). It's tedious, but not impossible. Note that the
> proportion of names REQUIRING examination of the original description
> is only 6% of the total. If I am correct that there are fewer than
> 7000 valid syrphid species names, you can expect only ~500 names that
> will need scrutiny, the vast majority of which should prove to be
> indeclinable because the original description gives no etymology at
> all. The remaining ~6500 can be screened within a week, IF THERE IS AN
> EXISTING COMPILED LIST OF VALID NAMES. If you would be willing to
> trust my assessments, I would be willing to help with this, I have
> lots of practice. ;-)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> --
> 
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> 
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> 
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
> 
>              https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> 
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> 
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> 
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
> 
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae



From botsander at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 09:25:34 2021
From: botsander at gmail.com (Sander Bot)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:25:34 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] pdf request
Message-ID: <CADxnVEvtXf0AYnC_kz4HFFu7Gf_K985Oj7og7dNmaEjTRCpPmw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Does anyone has a pdf of:

Collin, J. E. (1946): A redescription of Syrphus mecogramma Bigot, and a
note on the occurrence of probably the same species in Scotland. -
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 15, 11-12.

Many thanks in advance,

Sander
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/0e395205/attachment.html>

From m_reemer at hotmail.com  Mon Jan 11 09:34:01 2021
From: m_reemer at hotmail.com (Menno Reemer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:34:01 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: pdf request
In-Reply-To: <CADxnVEvtXf0AYnC_kz4HFFu7Gf_K985Oj7og7dNmaEjTRCpPmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADxnVEvtXf0AYnC_kz4HFFu7Gf_K985Oj7og7dNmaEjTRCpPmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AM0PR10MB2498AD03A6F92F4590113B23F5AB0@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Alstublieft!

________________________________
From: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of Sander Bot <botsander at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 9:25 AM
To: hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Syrphidae] pdf request

Dear all,

Does anyone has a pdf of:

Collin, J. E. (1946): A redescription of Syrphus mecogramma Bigot, and a note on the occurrence of probably the same species in Scotland. - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 15, 11-12.

Many thanks in advance,

Sander

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/7650ae38/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Collin_1946_Scaeva_mecogramma.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 505961 bytes
Desc: Collin_1946_Scaeva_mecogramma.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/7650ae38/attachment-0001.pdf>

From rvanderweele at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 09:55:11 2021
From: rvanderweele at gmail.com (ruud van der weele)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:55:11 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: pdf request
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR10MB2498AD03A6F92F4590113B23F5AB0@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CADxnVEvtXf0AYnC_kz4HFFu7Gf_K985Oj7og7dNmaEjTRCpPmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AM0PR10MB2498AD03A6F92F4590113B23F5AB0@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <FDA40637-E1C3-4A4C-95F3-E48FD3A4BA22@gmail.com>

ah, for me this is the first paper from Collin about Syrphidae. :-) 
Ruud van der Weele
Kloosterlaan 6
NL 4111 LG Zoelmond
the Netherlands
rvanderweele at gmail.com


> Op 11 jan. 2021, om 10:34 heeft Menno Reemer <m_reemer at hotmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> <Collin_1946_Scaeva_mecogramma.pdf>



From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Mon Jan 11 11:34:11 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:34:11 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: pdf request
In-Reply-To: <FDA40637-E1C3-4A4C-95F3-E48FD3A4BA22@gmail.com>
References: <CADxnVEvtXf0AYnC_kz4HFFu7Gf_K985Oj7og7dNmaEjTRCpPmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AM0PR10MB2498AD03A6F92F4590113B23F5AB0@AM0PR10MB2498.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<FDA40637-E1C3-4A4C-95F3-E48FD3A4BA22@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB624930E59CC2F4A73FF909BCBEAB0@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Here are some more !

Francis


-----Original Message-----
From: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of ruud van der weele
Sent: 11 January 2021 09:55
To: Menno Reemer <m_reemer at hotmail.com>
Cc: hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: pdf request

ah, for me this is the first paper from Collin about Syrphidae. :-) 
Ruud van der Weele
Kloosterlaan 6
NL 4111 LG Zoelmond
the Netherlands
rvanderweele at gmail.com


> Op 11 jan. 2021, om 10:34 heeft Menno Reemer <m_reemer at hotmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> <Collin_1946_Scaeva_mecogramma.pdf>


_______________________________________________
Syrphidae mailing list
Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Collin_1960 - a 4th Cnemodon in Britain.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 146513 bytes
Desc: Collin_1960 - a 4th Cnemodon in Britain.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/6192821d/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Collin_1944 - on Goffe taxonomy.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 551837 bytes
Desc: Collin_1944 - on Goffe taxonomy.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/6192821d/attachment-0006.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Collin_1920.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 348434 bytes
Desc: Collin_1920.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/6192821d/attachment-0007.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Collin_1940 - notes on syrphids esp Chrysotoxum.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1549388 bytes
Desc: Collin_1940 - notes on syrphids esp Chrysotoxum.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/6192821d/attachment-0008.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Collin_1952.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 152354 bytes
Desc: Collin_1952.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210111/6192821d/attachment-0009.pdf>

From w.v.steenis at casema.nl  Sun Jan 17 19:10:30 2021
From: w.v.steenis at casema.nl (w.v.steenis at casema.nl)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 20:10:30 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: males & pollen
In-Reply-To: <DB8PR06MB62495545FAADCB32DB77C020BEC80@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB8PR06MB62495545FAADCB32DB77C020BEC80@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <032c01d6ed04$6cdc5740$469505c0$@casema.nl>

Dear all, 

 

In the Zweefvliegennieuwsbrief 1 2005 Wilfried H.O. Ernst published (in
Dutch) results of a short research on pollen in the gut of male Syrphus
ribesii over the season. He did estimate the nutrient content of the pollen
in the guts. He did not discuss the reason the males need pollen. However,
it might be interesting to read since there is so little published on pollen
in Syrphidae guts. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Wouter

 

Van: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
<syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> Namens Francis Gilbert
Verzonden: zondag 13 december 2020 19:58
Aan: bioveyda at gmail.com
CC: Peter Kevan <pkevan at uoguelph.ca>; Hoverfly discussion list
<syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Onderwerp: [Syrphidae] males & pollen

 

hi Emile

 

As far as I know, no-one has ever experimentally addressed the question of
whether males need pollen to mature their gonads. I think Peter is the only
person to have suggested it. It is a very reasonable suggestion, given that
(a) most species are protandrous; and (b) in all spp where females take
pollen, males do as well, but they are less often seen taking pollen than
the females (Gilbert 1981 PhD thesis, p.129 & Table 7.1.2). From gut
dissections, male Rhingia campestris contain more nectar and less pollen
than females, but they clearly take pollen (Haslett 1989 Oecologia 81: 361).
Unfortunately there is no ageing method similar to female ovary development
to help with the timing of their pollen ingestion.

 

I am not sure there is much more than that in the literature.

 

Best wishes

 

Francis

 

 

Professor Francis Gilbert

Room B132 Life Sciences, University Park

University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

Tel 0115 951 3215

webpage: www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/ <http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/> 

 

 
 
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment. 
 
Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
where permitted by law.
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210117/e490a304/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Zweefvliegennieuwsbrief_2005-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 4792156 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210117/e490a304/attachment-0001.pdf>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Mon Jan 18 09:05:52 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:05:52 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: males & pollen
In-Reply-To: <032c01d6ed04$6cdc5740$469505c0$@casema.nl>
References: <DB8PR06MB62495545FAADCB32DB77C020BEC80@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
	<032c01d6ed04$6cdc5740$469505c0$@casema.nl>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB6249D813F11315A8E87A7E4FBEA40@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

and here's a translation into english
F


From: w.v.steenis at casema.nl [mailto:w.v.steenis at casema.nl]
Sent: 17 January 2021 19:11
To: Francis Gilbert <plzfg at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; bioveyda at gmail.com
Cc: 'Peter Kevan' <pkevan at uoguelph.ca>; 'Hoverfly discussion list' <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: [Syrphidae] males & pollen

Dear all,

In the Zweefvliegennieuwsbrief 1 2005 Wilfried H.O. Ernst published (in Dutch) results of a short research on pollen in the gut of male Syrphus ribesii over the season. He did estimate the nutrient content of the pollen in the guts. He did not discuss the reason the males need pollen. However, it might be interesting to read since there is so little published on pollen in Syrphidae guts.

Best wishes,

Wouter

Van: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> <syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>> Namens Francis Gilbert
Verzonden: zondag 13 december 2020 19:58
Aan: bioveyda at gmail.com<mailto:bioveyda at gmail.com>
CC: Peter Kevan <pkevan at uoguelph.ca<mailto:pkevan at uoguelph.ca>>; Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>
Onderwerp: [Syrphidae] males & pollen

hi Emile

As far as I know, no-one has ever experimentally addressed the question of whether males need pollen to mature their gonads. I think Peter is the only person to have suggested it. It is a very reasonable suggestion, given that (a) most species are protandrous; and (b) in all spp where females take pollen, males do as well, but they are less often seen taking pollen than the females (Gilbert 1981 PhD thesis, p.129 & Table 7.1.2). From gut dissections, male Rhingia campestris contain more nectar and less pollen than females, but they clearly take pollen (Haslett 1989 Oecologia 81: 361). Unfortunately there is no ageing method similar to female ovary development to help with the timing of their pollen ingestion.

I am not sure there is much more than that in the literature.

Best wishes

Francis


Professor Francis Gilbert
Room B132 Life Sciences, University Park
University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
Tel 0115 951 3215
webpage: www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/>






This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee

and may contain confidential information. If you have received this

message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and

attachment.



Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not

necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email

communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored

where permitted by law.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210118/4c11531d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ernst 2005 - pollen in guts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 279028 bytes
Desc: Ernst 2005 - pollen in guts.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210118/4c11531d/attachment-0001.pdf>

From xmengual at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 11:44:40 2021
From: xmengual at gmail.com (ximo mengual sanchis)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 12:44:40 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Final version - Loveridgeana
Message-ID: <CALZXNEu-OiO=BB+_r2Sy6PsGpJyARUTnPtzWX+DhKTPZKCydpw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

in case you like to read about Sphaerophoria and Loveridgeana, here you may
find the final version of our article:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772000.2020.1795743

Best wishes,

Ximo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210122/43502c56/attachment.html>

From xmengual at gmail.com  Sat Jan 23 08:59:00 2021
From: xmengual at gmail.com (ximo mengual sanchis)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:59:00 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Final version - Loveridgeana
In-Reply-To: <CALZXNEu-OiO=BB+_r2Sy6PsGpJyARUTnPtzWX+DhKTPZKCydpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALZXNEu-OiO=BB+_r2Sy6PsGpJyARUTnPtzWX+DhKTPZKCydpw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALZXNEu6DCPD-bua04k8KWMQUJnEgHzy8LZC=MYJ-_07GkYSyQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I somehow though that there was no pay-wall. The following link has 50 free
copies:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/X2RWQYPIDTVI8ZR2G5JQ/full?target=10.1080/14772000.2020.1795743

Best,

Ximo

El vie., 22 ene. 2021 12:44, ximo mengual sanchis <xmengual at gmail.com>
escribi?:

> Dear all,
>
> in case you like to read about Sphaerophoria and Loveridgeana, here you
> may find the final version of our article:
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772000.2020.1795743
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ximo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210123/4e6bf741/attachment.html>

From robert at insects.pl  Sun Jan 24 21:10:44 2021
From: robert at insects.pl (=?UTF-8?B?Um9iZXJ0IMW7w7NyYWxza2k=?=)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:10:44 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Inquiry fot a Cheilosia article
Message-ID: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi. Does any of you have electronic version of Anatoliy's subgenerical
classification of Cheilosia? (cite below). I have difficulty to find just
number of E.O. ang giving a try here in our community. I see also, in
literature sections of some research articles, that it was published in
Entomological Review journal number 82. Does it mean there was also English
version published?

Robert Zoralski

Barkalov, A.V. (2002) A subgeneric classification of the genus
*Cheilosia* Meigen,
1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae). *Entomologicheskoe obozrenie*, 81 (1), 218?234.
[in Russian]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210124/45509736/attachment.html>

From muscapaul at gmail.com  Sun Jan 24 21:30:53 2021
From: muscapaul at gmail.com (muscapaul)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:30:53 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Inquiry fot a Cheilosia article
In-Reply-To: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+Gew0SYF--PKe5vZWtDtzEpJfVJV1E34Zk+21PNTDo-8Bnw=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Interested in the English translation?

Paul

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 22:11, Robert ??ralski <robert at insects.pl> wrote:

> Hi. Does any of you have electronic version of Anatoliy's subgenerical
> classification of Cheilosia? (cite below). I have difficulty to find just
> number of E.O. ang giving a try here in our community. I see also, in
> literature sections of some research articles, that it was published in
> Entomological Review journal number 82. Does it mean there was also English
> version published?
>
> Robert Zoralski
>
> Barkalov, A.V. (2002) A subgeneric classification of the genus *Cheilosia* Meigen,
> 1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae). *Entomologicheskoe obozrenie*, 81 (1),
> 218?234. [in Russian]
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210124/43428b60/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Barkalov2002_CheilosiaSG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1024607 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210124/43428b60/attachment-0001.pdf>

From tamaratot90 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 24 21:25:55 2021
From: tamaratot90 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VGFtYXJhIFTDs3Ro?=)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:25:55 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Inquiry fot a Cheilosia article
In-Reply-To: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALY_a7jEEoQN14u65Qzc5MZ9BHamndfn_qM4Hsn=bq7Px-3FOQ@mail.gmail.com>

Here they are.
Best regards,
Tamara

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Mentes
a v?rusokt?l. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 22:11, Robert ??ralski <robert at insects.pl> wrote:

> Hi. Does any of you have electronic version of Anatoliy's subgenerical
> classification of Cheilosia? (cite below). I have difficulty to find just
> number of E.O. ang giving a try here in our community. I see also, in
> literature sections of some research articles, that it was published in
> Entomological Review journal number 82. Does it mean there was also English
> version published?
>
> Robert Zoralski
>
> Barkalov, A.V. (2002) A subgeneric classification of the genus *Cheilosia* Meigen,
> 1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae). *Entomologicheskoe obozrenie*, 81 (1),
> 218?234. [in Russian]
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210124/894e8eed/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Barkalov 2002 Cheilosia SG.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1024607 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210124/894e8eed/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Barkalov_2002_A1482.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 8164612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210124/894e8eed/attachment-0003.pdf>

From eckvana at xs4all.nl  Mon Jan 25 10:22:50 2021
From: eckvana at xs4all.nl (Andre van Eck)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:22:50 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Inquiry fot a Cheilosia article
In-Reply-To: <CALY_a7jEEoQN14u65Qzc5MZ9BHamndfn_qM4Hsn=bq7Px-3FOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALY_a7jEEoQN14u65Qzc5MZ9BHamndfn_qM4Hsn=bq7Px-3FOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555703726.11018.1611570170345@webmail-nieuw.xs4all.nl>

A nicer copy of the Russian paper attached here.
Unfortunately, there is no neater one of the English version, as far as I know. 

cheers, stay happy!
Andr?


>     Op 24-01-2021 22:25 schreef Tamara T?th <tamaratot90 at gmail.com>:
> 
> 
>     Here they are.
>     Best regards,
>     Tamara
> 
>      http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>     Mentes a v?rusokt?l. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> 
>     On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 22:11, Robert ??ralski <robert at insects.pl mailto:robert at insects.pl > wrote:
> 
>         > >         Hi. Does any of you have electronic version of Anatoliy's subgenerical classification of Cheilosia? (cite below). I have difficulty to find just number of E.O. ang giving a try here in our community. I see also, in literature sections of some research articles, that it was published in Entomological Review journal number 82. Does it mean there was also English version published?
> > 
> >         Robert Zoralski
> > 
> >         Barkalov, A.V. (2002) A subgeneric classification of the genus Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae). Entomologicheskoe obozrenie, 81 (1), 218?234. [in Russian]
> > 
> >         This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> >         and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> >         message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> >         attachment. 
> > 
> >         Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> >         necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> >         communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
> >         where permitted by law.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Syrphidae mailing list
> >         Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk mailto:Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> >         http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
> > 
> >     > 
>     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>     message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>     attachment. 
> 
>     Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>     necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>     communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
>     where permitted by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Syrphidae mailing list
>     Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>     http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210125/7ab0cf1c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2002 A subgeneric classification of the genus Cheilosia.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1026422 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210125/7ab0cf1c/attachment-0001.pdf>

From robert at insects.pl  Mon Jan 25 20:35:59 2021
From: robert at insects.pl (=?UTF-8?B?Um9iZXJ0IMW7w7NyYWxza2k=?=)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:35:59 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Inquiry fot a Cheilosia article
In-Reply-To: <555703726.11018.1611570170345@webmail-nieuw.xs4all.nl>
References: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALY_a7jEEoQN14u65Qzc5MZ9BHamndfn_qM4Hsn=bq7Px-3FOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<555703726.11018.1611570170345@webmail-nieuw.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <CAO6nM3-35QypYZbCBTxLZAS=VFOATjJXWo-LTryeScdQ=E-GfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you all for help. Much appreciate.

Robert

pon., 25 sty 2021 o 11:22 Andre van Eck <eckvana at xs4all.nl> napisa?(a):

> A nicer copy of the Russian paper attached here.
> Unfortunately, there is no neater one of the English version, as far as I
> know.
>
> cheers, stay happy!
> Andr?
>
> Op 24-01-2021 22:25 schreef Tamara T?th <tamaratot90 at gmail.com>:
>
>
> Here they are.
> Best regards,
> Tamara
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Mentes
> a v?rusokt?l. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 22:11, Robert ??ralski <robert at insects.pl> wrote:
>
> Hi. Does any of you have electronic version of Anatoliy's subgenerical
> classification of Cheilosia? (cite below). I have difficulty to find just
> number of E.O. ang giving a try here in our community. I see also, in
> literature sections of some research articles, that it was published in
> Entomological Review journal number 82. Does it mean there was also English
> version published?
>
> Robert Zoralski
>
> Barkalov, A.V. (2002) A subgeneric classification of the genus *Cheilosia* Meigen,
> 1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae). *Entomologicheskoe obozrenie*, 81 (1),
> 218?234. [in Russian]
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210125/631c77f9/attachment.html>

From kjordaens2 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 26 08:33:01 2021
From: kjordaens2 at gmail.com (Kurt Jordaens)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:33:01 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] pdf request Gomes (1981), Garcia de Orta, 10: 51-53
Message-ID: <CAKzbZeAv_p-JiYYejcwo4sGcgu=pz6MjfBY+J=uic4MznfSJ9w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I'm looking for a pdf of the following paper:

Gomes, A. (1981). Notas sobre une coleccao de sirfideos da regiao Ethiopica
do Centro de Zoologia (Diptera, Syrphidae). Garcia de Orta (Zoologia), 10 :
51 ? 53.


I hope someone can share this!


thank you very much and all the best,

kurt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210126/a5f3035a/attachment.html>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Tue Jan 26 09:12:14 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:12:14 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: pdf request Gomes (1981), Garcia de Orta, 10: 51-53
In-Reply-To: <CAKzbZeAv_p-JiYYejcwo4sGcgu=pz6MjfBY+J=uic4MznfSJ9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzbZeAv_p-JiYYejcwo4sGcgu=pz6MjfBY+J=uic4MznfSJ9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB62496D9354DA4A4204F1E2A7BEBC0@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

here it is

Francis


From: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Kurt Jordaens
Sent: 26 January 2021 08:33
To: hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Syrphidae] pdf request Gomes (1981), Garcia de Orta, 10: 51-53

Dear all,

I'm looking for a pdf of the following paper:
Gomes, A. (1981). Notas sobre une coleccao de sirfideos da regiao Ethiopica do Centro de Zoologia (Diptera, Syrphidae). Garcia de Orta (Zoologia), 10 : 51 ? 53.

I hope someone can share this!

thank you very much and all the best,
kurt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210126/9fa6e2e9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Gomes_1982.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 260123 bytes
Desc: Gomes_1982.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210126/9fa6e2e9/attachment-0001.pdf>

From botsander at gmail.com  Tue Jan 26 13:02:18 2021
From: botsander at gmail.com (Sander Bot)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 14:02:18 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Inquiry fot a Cheilosia article
In-Reply-To: <555703726.11018.1611570170345@webmail-nieuw.xs4all.nl>
References: <CAO6nM3_bOAyam00JWUn_e=nkNVRAHAPmHKegukvUZ-ioZc5t0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALY_a7jEEoQN14u65Qzc5MZ9BHamndfn_qM4Hsn=bq7Px-3FOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<555703726.11018.1611570170345@webmail-nieuw.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <CADxnVEvu=1RZFtaQ-GV83_N864h59AK5yFUTPSUg-szjtufLfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andr? et al,

> Unfortunately, there is no neater one of the English version, as far as I
know.

The one in the attachment is slightly better.

cheers,

Sander


Op ma 25 jan. 2021 om 11:23 schreef Andre van Eck <eckvana at xs4all.nl>:

> A nicer copy of the Russian paper attached here.
> Unfortunately, there is no neater one of the English version, as far as I
> know.
>
> cheers, stay happy!
> Andr?
>
> Op 24-01-2021 22:25 schreef Tamara T?th <tamaratot90 at gmail.com>:
>
>
> Here they are.
> Best regards,
> Tamara
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Mentes
> a v?rusokt?l. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 22:11, Robert ??ralski <robert at insects.pl> wrote:
>
> Hi. Does any of you have electronic version of Anatoliy's subgenerical
> classification of Cheilosia? (cite below). I have difficulty to find just
> number of E.O. ang giving a try here in our community. I see also, in
> literature sections of some research articles, that it was published in
> Entomological Review journal number 82. Does it mean there was also English
> version published?
>
> Robert Zoralski
>
> Barkalov, A.V. (2002) A subgeneric classification of the genus *Cheilosia* Meigen,
> 1822 (Diptera, Syrphidae). *Entomologicheskoe obozrenie*, 81 (1),
> 218?234. [in Russian]
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210126/c6cd3fc0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001 Subgeneric Classification of the Genus Cheilosia Meigen 1822 Barkalov 2002.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 951806 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210126/c6cd3fc0/attachment-0001.pdf>

From stefanpruner at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 09:51:36 2021
From: stefanpruner at gmail.com (Stefan Pruner)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:51:36 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Platycheirus paper
Message-ID: <CALo5=b6tp0o+CwFkh3HqMt-ANraHJ++1aZfBWgMc==M9PAp0_A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello!

The following paper could help me with determination issues I have with
specimens in my collection.
Could anyone share a copy of
Speight, M.C.D. & Goeldlin de Tiefenau, P. (1990) Keys to distinguish
Platycheirus
angustipes, P.europaeus, P.occultus and P.ramsarensis (Dipt., Syrphidae)
from other clypeatus group species known in Europe.
?

Thank you very much in advance!

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210127/f1594549/attachment.html>

From tamaratot90 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 10:08:06 2021
From: tamaratot90 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VGFtYXJhIFTDs3Ro?=)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:08:06 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Platycheirus paper
In-Reply-To: <CALY_a7iX-S1o=w973us4O7QUtzzcyvTjBe=+MwZSwn0BR4MZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALo5=b6tp0o+CwFkh3HqMt-ANraHJ++1aZfBWgMc==M9PAp0_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALY_a7iX-S1o=w973us4O7QUtzzcyvTjBe=+MwZSwn0BR4MZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALY_a7j+KZOQ6C4YrxuXeZeE5EN6=LrpwD0LCV3QwS6VuSkw4w@mail.gmail.com>

Here it is.
Regards,
Tamara

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:05, Tamara T?th <tamaratot90 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here it is.
> Regards,
> Tamara
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:51, Stefan Pruner <stefanpruner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> The following paper could help me with determination issues I have with
>> specimens in my collection.
>> Could anyone share a copy of
>> Speight, M.C.D. & Goeldlin de Tiefenau, P. (1990) Keys to distinguish Platycheirus
>> angustipes, P.europaeus, P.occultus and P.ramsarensis (Dipt., Syrphidae)
>> from other clypeatus group species known in Europe.
>> ?
>>
>> Thank you very much in advance!
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>> attachment.
>>
>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>> where permitted by law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Syrphidae mailing list
>> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210127/6d0d73b9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Speight_Goeldlin1990_A1076_compressed.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 6035909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210127/6d0d73b9/attachment-0001.pdf>

From stefanpruner at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 12:36:16 2021
From: stefanpruner at gmail.com (Stefan Pruner)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:36:16 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Platycheirus paper
In-Reply-To: <CALY_a7j+KZOQ6C4YrxuXeZeE5EN6=LrpwD0LCV3QwS6VuSkw4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALo5=b6tp0o+CwFkh3HqMt-ANraHJ++1aZfBWgMc==M9PAp0_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALY_a7iX-S1o=w973us4O7QUtzzcyvTjBe=+MwZSwn0BR4MZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALY_a7j+KZOQ6C4YrxuXeZeE5EN6=LrpwD0LCV3QwS6VuSkw4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALo5=b7Qg0iRtMNpxW6K4dAcdsbsE7qGizgHrMBJEDrGhpOcfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you very much! I highly appreciate it! :)

Stefan

Tamara T?th <tamaratot90 at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 27. J?n. 2021, 11:08:

> Here it is.
> Regards,
> Tamara
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 11:05, Tamara T?th <tamaratot90 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here it is.
>> Regards,
>> Tamara
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:51, Stefan Pruner <stefanpruner at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> The following paper could help me with determination issues I have with
>>> specimens in my collection.
>>> Could anyone share a copy of
>>> Speight, M.C.D. & Goeldlin de Tiefenau, P. (1990) Keys to distinguish Platycheirus
>>> angustipes, P.europaeus, P.occultus and P.ramsarensis (Dipt.,
>>> Syrphidae) from other clypeatus group species known in Europe.
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Thank you very much in advance!
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>>> attachment.
>>>
>>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>>> where permitted by law.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Syrphidae mailing list
>>> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>>> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210127/0b3d1e5c/attachment.html>

From tamaratot90 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 10:05:11 2021
From: tamaratot90 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VGFtYXJhIFTDs3Ro?=)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:05:11 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Platycheirus paper
In-Reply-To: <CALo5=b6tp0o+CwFkh3HqMt-ANraHJ++1aZfBWgMc==M9PAp0_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALo5=b6tp0o+CwFkh3HqMt-ANraHJ++1aZfBWgMc==M9PAp0_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALY_a7iX-S1o=w973us4O7QUtzzcyvTjBe=+MwZSwn0BR4MZKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Here it is.
Regards,
Tamara

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 10:51, Stefan Pruner <stefanpruner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> The following paper could help me with determination issues I have with
> specimens in my collection.
> Could anyone share a copy of
> Speight, M.C.D. & Goeldlin de Tiefenau, P. (1990) Keys to distinguish Platycheirus
> angustipes, P.europaeus, P.occultus and P.ramsarensis (Dipt., Syrphidae)
> from other clypeatus group species known in Europe.
> ?
>
> Thank you very much in advance!
>
> Stefan
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210127/8658448e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Speight_Goeldlin1990_A1076.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20761432 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210127/8658448e/attachment-0001.pdf>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Thu Jan 28 12:29:04 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:29:04 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] great paper
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB6249AE181858770D87C7EBC8BEBA9@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

hi everyone

I just wanted to share the translation of just one of a marvellous series of papers on pollination in Russia by GM Dlusskii and colleagues. They are almost unknown in the West, as far as I can tell, but they represent a very different approach from the normal one. Nearly all of them involve syrphids!

I had translated his fantastic paper on mimcry many years ago - it's on my website - another unique approach to an old problem.

Best wishes to all

Francis


Professor Francis Gilbert
Room B132 Life Sciences, University Park
University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
Tel 0115 951 3215
webpage: www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210128/7d92f8d4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Vachramyeeva&Dlusskii_1994 - visitors & pollination of 3 Campanula spp_ru&en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 4117279 bytes
Desc: Vachramyeeva&Dlusskii_1994 - visitors & pollination of 3 Campanula spp_ru&en.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210128/7d92f8d4/attachment-0001.pdf>

From xmengual at gmail.com  Fri Jan 29 10:29:16 2021
From: xmengual at gmail.com (ximo mengual sanchis)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:29:16 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Chu & He 1993 - Epistrophe
Message-ID: <CALZXNEsiqmgKw3-k=Gh9ZOLqQwpBuJ3_2ZqwYLF664Hukgt5Aw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I was wondering if anyone has the following publication to share with me:

Chu, Xiping & He, Jilong. 1993. Description of three new species of *Epistrophe
*Walker from China (Diptera: Syrphidae). Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong
University (Agricultural Science Edition), 11: 149-155.

http://shjtdxnxb.alljournals.org.cn/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=19930226&flag=1

Many thanks in advance!

Ximo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210129/06101aa5/attachment.html>

From kakojan112 at gmail.com  Fri Jan 29 12:37:46 2021
From: kakojan112 at gmail.com (Muhammad Asghar Hassan)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:22:46 +0545
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 22
In-Reply-To: <mailman.11.1611921605.2523.syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
References: <mailman.11.1611921605.2523.syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CAO91tTa8qLyd0Aa5uboZaXZKTK6-mw7J1=W=ORgH12YAGHPL7A@mail.gmail.com>

I will try to find it in our school library if we have in hard form.

Asghar from China Agricultural University Beijing, China.

On Friday, January 29, 2021, <syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Send Syrphidae mailing list submissions to
>         syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         syrphidae-request at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         syrphidae-owner at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Syrphidae digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Chu & He 1993 - Epistrophe (ximo mengual sanchis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:29:16 +0100
> From: ximo mengual sanchis <xmengual at gmail.com>
> To: Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> Subject: [Syrphidae] Chu & He 1993 - Epistrophe
> Message-ID:
>         <CALZXNEsiqmgKw3-k=Gh9ZOLqQwpBuJ3_2ZqwYLF664Hukgt5Aw at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has the following publication to share with me:
>
> Chu, Xiping & He, Jilong. 1993. Description of three new species of
> *Epistrophe
> *Walker from China (Diptera: Syrphidae). Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong
> University (Agricultural Science Edition), 11: 149-155.
>
> http://shjtdxnxb.alljournals.org.cn/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=
> 19930226&flag=1
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Ximo
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/
> attachments/20210129/06101aa5/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
>
> End of Syrphidae Digest, Vol 169, Issue 22
> ******************************************
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210129/b85143fd/attachment.html>

From ljvanderent at planet.nl  Fri Jan 29 22:54:11 2021
From: ljvanderent at planet.nl (Leendert-Jan van der Ent)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 23:54:11 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Syrphidae] articles Kuznetzov
Message-ID: <677811384.358021.1611960851235@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl>

Hi,

Could anybody provide my both following articles.

Kuznetzov S.Yu., Kuznetzova N.V. 1996.
Recent additions to the hoverflies (Diptera,
Syrphidae) fauna of Latvia. ? Int. J.
Dipterological Research 7, No 2: 87-93.

Kuznetzov S.Yu., Karpa A., Spungis V.
1996. A further records of hoverflies (Diptera,
Syrphidae) from Latvia. ? Int. Dipterological
Research 7, No 3: 201-202

Ans also, if possible:

Kuznetzov S.Yu 1987. [New data on
hover-flies (Diptera Syrphidae) of the Fauna of
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia]. ? Latvijas
entomologs 30: 50-59 (in Russian).

Kuznetzov S.Yu 1989. [New data on Syrphidae and Pipunculidae
(Diptera, Syrphoidea) families fauna of the
Latvia]. ? Zoolo ijas aktu l s problmas. LU
Zin. rakstu kr jums, R ga: 163-174 (in Russian,
English abstracts).

Google translate will hopefully help me out.


Thanks in advance!


Best wishes,
Leendert-Jan van der Ent


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210129/02681462/attachment.html>

From j.van.steenis at xmsnet.nl  Sat Jan 30 09:02:30 2021
From: j.van.steenis at xmsnet.nl (Jeroen van Steenis)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:02:30 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: articles Kuznetzov
In-Reply-To: <677811384.358021.1611960851235@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl>
References: <677811384.358021.1611960851235@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl>
Message-ID: <CABfe8yTj3ouXF6N2J8wr_=72jWgrYKXfc0XrGQFT8BW1i_PePA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Leendert-Jan

Here the first two, the others I would like to get too.

Jeroen.

Op vr 29 jan. 2021 om 23:54 schreef Leendert-Jan van der Ent <
ljvanderent at planet.nl>:

> Hi,
>
> Could anybody provide my both following articles.
>
> Kuznetzov S.Yu., Kuznetzova N.V. 1996.
> Recent additions to the hoverflies (Diptera,
> Syrphidae) fauna of Latvia. ? Int. J.
> Dipterological Research 7, No 2: 87-93.
>
> Kuznetzov S.Yu., Karpa A., Spungis V.
> 1996. A further records of hoverflies (Diptera,
> Syrphidae) from Latvia. ? Int. Dipterological
> Research 7, No 3: 201-202
>
> Ans also, if possible:
>
> Kuznetzov S.Yu 1987. [New data on
> hover-flies (Diptera Syrphidae) of the Fauna of
> Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia]. ? Latvijas
> entomologs 30: 50-59 (in Russian).
>
> Kuznetzov S.Yu 1989. [New data on Syrphidae and Pipunculidae
> (Diptera, Syrphoidea) families fauna of the
> Latvia]. ? Zoolo ijas aktu l s problmas. LU
> Zin. rakstu kr jums, R ga: 163-174 (in Russian,
> English abstracts).
>
> Google translate will hopefully help me out.
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Leendert-Jan van der Ent
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/9043f06d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kuznetzov et al, 1996 Syrphidae Latvia Further records.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 439082 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/9043f06d/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kuznezov & Kuznetzova 1996 Recent additions Syrphidae Latvia.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1351072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/9043f06d/attachment-0003.pdf>

From andrius at gamtoj.com  Sat Jan 30 09:50:22 2021
From: andrius at gamtoj.com (Andrius)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 11:50:22 +0200
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: articles Kuznetzov
In-Reply-To: <677811384.358021.1611960851235@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl>
References: <677811384.358021.1611960851235@kpc.webmail.kpnmail.nl>
Message-ID: <1111389022.20210130115022@gamtoj.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/fa9db2c5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kuznetsov 1987 - New data on hover-flies of Lith Latv Est.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3965222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/fa9db2c5/attachment-0001.pdf>

From kakojan112 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 30 15:40:39 2021
From: kakojan112 at gmail.com (Muhammad Asghar Hassan)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 21:25:39 +0545
Subject: [Syrphidae] Epistrope from China
Message-ID: <CAO91tTYjY0GVJUQe6wjDB07KfKXVLhG_cub1FJqBWHwd0mcwuA@mail.gmail.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/e18f95fb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ???????Epistrophe+Walker?????(???_????).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 481612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210130/e18f95fb/attachment-0001.pdf>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Sun Jan 31 10:15:03 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:15:03 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] FW:  Epistrope from China
In-Reply-To: <CAO91tTYjY0GVJUQe6wjDB07KfKXVLhG_cub1FJqBWHwd0mcwuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO91tTYjY0GVJUQe6wjDB07KfKXVLhG_cub1FJqBWHwd0mcwuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB6249B8A01A2A457F592A9C45BEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

in case this did not get through
Francis

From: syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:syrphidae-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Muhammad Asghar Hassan
Sent: 30 January 2021 15:41
To: syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Subject: [Syrphidae] Epistrope from China


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/253e3d28/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ???????Epistrophe+Walker?????(???_????).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 481612 bytes
Desc: ???????Epistrophe+Walker?????(???_????).pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/253e3d28/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/253e3d28/attachment-0001.txt>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Sun Jan 31 11:13:35 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:13:35 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] proboscis length
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB6249B96991F3863ACB5CEF85BEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

hi everyone

In Lesvos during the discussion of my talk I suggested that two vital traits of adult syrphids could usefully be incorporated into the Syrph the Net database of species: a measure of body size, and proboscis length. I believe that Axel is working on doing providing some data for existing measurements of proboscis length. Gerard commented that everyone needs to know how to measure proboscis length on their specimens, so that a comprehensive set of data can build up.

Here's a pretty easy way to do it. Measure the length of the prementum, the sclerite forming the underneath of the gutter that ends in the labella (see attached figure). It is usually visible even on dried specimens where the proboscis is retracted into the head, but just as with the genitalia, you could relax the specimen and tease out the proboscis with forceps to expose the prementum.

Once you have the prementum length (PR), then the proboscis length (PL) is:

PL = 4.8 x PR

This relationship is linear with a very high correlation (r? = 0.991 - see below), and hence is a reliable way of estimating proboscis length on a dry specimen, otherwise tricky or impossible to do.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D6F7C2.1C99B5C0]

Best wishes

Francis



Professor Francis Gilbert
Room B132 Life Sciences, University Park
University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
Tel 0115 951 3215
webpage: www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~plzfg/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/39977c0d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7673 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/39977c0d/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: prementum.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 260006 bytes
Desc: prementum.pdf
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/39977c0d/attachment-0001.pdf>

From Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk  Sun Jan 31 15:06:22 2021
From: Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk (Francis Gilbert)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:06:22 +0000
Subject: [Syrphidae] FW: syrphidae in amber
In-Reply-To: <1612105187636.30988@kuleuven.be>
References: <DB8PR06MB6249B96991F3863ACB5CEF85BEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
	<1612105187636.30988@kuleuven.be>
Message-ID: <DB8PR06MB6249175D0340263D184D8BDFBEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>



From: Frank Van de Meutter [mailto:frank.vandemeutter at kuleuven.be]
Sent: 31 January 2021 15:01
To: Francis Gilbert <plzfg at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: syrphidae in amber


Dear all

recently I occasionally bumped into a website offering insects in amber for sale. There are a number of very well preserved syrphids among them!

Some examples

https://www.amberinclusions.eu/very-nice-hover-fly-syrphidae-fossil-insect-in-baltic-amber-9192

https://www.amberinclusions.eu/hover-fly-syrphidae-fossil-insect-in-baltic-amber-7117

https://ambercollector.com/shop-all/rare-syrphidae-flower-fly-fossil-insect-inclusion-in-genuine-baltic-amber-1019/



Now I was wondering if the sale of such specimens is legal, and whether such fossils should be organised as they offer incredible views on the evolution of syrphidae.

It is such a shame that all these specimens are sold and scattered around the world without being thoroughly researched?



cheers

Frank
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/b5038392/attachment-0001.html>

From xmengual at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 15:31:41 2021
From: xmengual at gmail.com (ximo mengual sanchis)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 16:31:41 +0100
Subject: [Syrphidae] Re: FW: syrphidae in amber
In-Reply-To: <DB8PR06MB6249175D0340263D184D8BDFBEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB8PR06MB6249B96991F3863ACB5CEF85BEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
	<1612105187636.30988@kuleuven.be>
	<DB8PR06MB6249175D0340263D184D8BDFBEB79@DB8PR06MB6249.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CALZXNEu03Y3S9i0vp+1DguzXyS2+4PgNOpo73DOQ4kewnK3Y4w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Frank,

There is an urgent need to revise the fossils of the family Syrphidae, not
only to know more about the past, but also to improve the knowlegde of
recent and exant taxa. Fossils are being used to date molecular phylogenies
and to study morphological synapomorphies, besides getting to know lineages
that did not reach our present time.

As far as I know, some of us have talked about this project several times,
willing to work on them, and even tryinf to get money for a postdoc. The
first thing, though, is to revise the types and the work from Hull (1945).

You can buy syrphid fossils, it is not illegal. At the ZFMK in Bonn, we
habe a large collection of dipterans in fossils (over 400 pieces); with 60
or so belonging to Syrphidae.

The current trading of fossils in amber is being critized, especially the
amber coming from Myanmar:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232283-300-it-is-time-to-bring-global-attention-to-the-trade-in-burmese-amber/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02432-z

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03006-9

https://asia.nikkei.com/Location/Southeast-Asia/Myanmar-amber-traps-scientists-in-ethical-dilemma-over-funding-war

There are many more webs related to this ethical (not illegal) issue.
Unfortunately, the closest inclusions to the origin of the family Syrphidae
(stem group) come out from Myanmar:
https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090-423.1.1


We cannot ban private collectors or force everyone to deposit specimens in
a single institute. Museums have fossil collections as well as alcohol and
pinned collections, and private collectors may as well. The only
requirement of the Code is always to deposit the holotype in a public,
free-access institution to validate the new name.

Best wishes,

Ximo





El dom., 31 ene. 2021 16:06, Francis Gilbert <
Francis.Gilbert at nottingham.ac.uk> escribi?:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Frank Van de Meutter [mailto:frank.vandemeutter at kuleuven.be]
> *Sent:* 31 January 2021 15:01
> *To:* Francis Gilbert <plzfg at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>; hoverfly
> discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Subject:* syrphidae in amber
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> recently I occasionally bumped into a website offering insects in amber
> for sale. There are a number of very well preserved syrphids among them!
>
> Some examples
>
>
> https://www.amberinclusions.eu/very-nice-hover-fly-syrphidae-fossil-insect-in-baltic-amber-9192
>
>
> https://www.amberinclusions.eu/hover-fly-syrphidae-fossil-insect-in-baltic-amber-7117
>
>
> https://ambercollector.com/shop-all/rare-syrphidae-flower-fly-fossil-insect-inclusion-in-genuine-baltic-amber-1019/
>
>
>
> Now I was wondering if the sale of such specimens is legal, and whether
> such fossils should be organised as they offer incredible views on the
> evolution of syrphidae.
>
> It is such a shame that all these specimens are sold and scattered around
> the world without being thoroughly researched?
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Frank
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syrphidae mailing list
> Syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20210131/32f03486/attachment.html>