Widespread misidentification: Austrosciapus proximus vs A. connexus (wing banding diagnostic)

General
1

Hi all,

I’ve noticed a systematic misidentification issue affecting Austrosciapus proximus observations on iNaturalist. Many images currently identified as A. proximus appear to actually be A. connexus based on wing morphology.

The key diagnostic: A. connexus has distinct transverse dark brown wing markings joined across the anterior margin, while A. proximus does NOT have this banding. Currently, the dominant images on the A. proximus species page show specimens with clear wing banding — indicating they are likely A. connexus.

Both species belong to the Complex Austrosciapus proximus (which contains 9 species total). The complex exists as an appropriate ‘parking spot’ for observations that can’t be confidently narrowed to species level.

Reference: Bickel, D.J. (1994) ‘The Australian Sciapodinae (Diptera: Dolichopodidae), with a review of the Oriental and Australasian faunas, and a world conspectus of the subfamily.’ Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 21: 1-394. Also corroborated by Brisbane Insects (brisbaneinsects.com/brisbane_Dolichopodid/GreenLongLeggedFly2.htm).

I’ve flagged the A. proximus taxon page for curation, but given the scale of the misidentification I wanted to raise it here as well. If anyone with Diptera/Dolichopodidae expertise could assist with reviewing and correcting affected observations, that would be greatly appreciated.

Suggested corrections:

  • Observations showing wing banding → re-identify as A. connexus
  • Observations where wing morphology is unclear → move to Complex Austrosciapus proximus
  • Observations with clear, unbanded wings → retain as A. proximus

Happy to discuss further or provide additional references.

Thanks,
Lochran

3 Likes
2

I’m definitely not qualified to help with this, but am I correct in thinking that this has now mostly been taken care of? The 338 observations currently IDed as A. proximus all look (to my untrained eye) to have the wing bands you describe.

EDIT: In fact, if I am understanding this correctly (a big if) many observations currently under A. connexus do seem to have the wing bands as described. Is that what now needs to be fixed?

3

Widespread misIDs in insect (and other) taxons are the norm in iNaturalist. It’s one of the drawbacks of a crowd-sourced ID platform, but is easy(ish) to fix by recruiting knowledgeable IDers to fix IDs. Unfortunately there will always be way more people uploading observations than there will be able to accurately ID them all.

3 Likes
5

I am responding on the flag you created (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/813400).

Please do not make identifications based on the presence or lack of wing banding as many individuals may have fainter markings due to developmental differences. A. proximus also has wing banding, as explained in my comment on the flag.

Please also note that A. connexus and A. proximus are not the only species with wing banding in this form, and you will create more misidentifications by identifying them as such.

5 Likes
6

Closing this topic to focus the taxon-specific discussion on the taxon flag