Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Simosyrphus grandicornis
(common hover fly)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Simosyrphus grandicornis (common hover fly)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 14 July 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Natural Enemy
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Simosyrphus grandicornis
  • Preferred Common Name
  • common hover fly
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Arthropoda
  •       Subphylum: Uniramia
  •         Class: Insecta
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • S. grandicornis is an Australasian species of flower fly and is one of the two most common flower flies in Australia, together with Melangyna (Austrosyrphus) viridiceps (...

  • Principal Source
  • Draft datasheet under review

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); female, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
TitleFemale, dorsal view
CaptionSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); female, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Copyright©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); female, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Female, dorsal viewSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); female, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
TitleMale, dorsal view
CaptionSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Copyright©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Male, dorsal viewSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, dorsal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, lateral view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
TitleMale, lateral view
CaptionSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, lateral view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Copyright©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, lateral view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Male, lateral viewSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, lateral view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, frontal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
TitleMale, frontal view
CaptionSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, frontal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Copyright©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014
Simosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, frontal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.
Male, frontal viewSimosyrphus grandicornis (a hoverfly); male, frontal view. Museum set specimen. Collected in the Stirling Ranges NP, Western Australia. November, 2008.©Joaquin Mengual Sanchis-2014

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Simosyrphus grandicornis (Macquart, 1842)

Preferred Common Name

  • common hover fly

Other Scientific Names

  • Metasyrphus fasciatus Shiraki, 1963
  • Syrphus australiensis Goot, 1964
  • Syrphus grandicornis Macquart, 1842
  • Syrphus huttoni Goot, 1964
  • Syrphus melanurus Bigot, 1884
  • Syrphus obesus Hutton, 1901
  • Syrphus pusilla Macquart, 1847
  • Syrphus sydneyensis Macquart, 1846
  • Syrphus vitiensis Bezzi, 1928

Local Common Names

  • Australia: common hoverfly; yellow-shouldered stout hover fly

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

S. grandicornis is an Australasian species of flower fly and is one of the two most common flower flies in Australia, together with Melangyna (Austrosyrphus) viridiceps (Macquart, 1847) (Soleyman-Nezhadiyan and Laughlin, 1998; Bowie et al., 2001). This species is widespread accross the Pacific islands reaching Hawaii, the most eastern point in its distribution. Hardy (1964) catalogued this species as immigrant in Hawaii, and Nishida (2002) considered it as an adventive species there. Originally there were no members of the family Syrphidae in the Hawaiian Islands, and all the current species of flower flies are introduced either inadvertently with human colonizations (introduced as larva in trasnported fruits and plants) or as a biological control agent of some pests; natural spread is possible but unlikely.

Although several syrphid species have been introduced in Hawaii, only a few are established, with the potential to become invasive. In its natural range, S. grandicornis may be very abundant and dominant under certain climate conditions. Adults seem to be generalist nectar feeders and larvae are predators on several aphids and some caterpillars (Rojo et al., 2003). Thus, S. grandicornis could potentially displace more specialist native species if it becomes established in an environment that suits it well. However, S. grandicornis is not listed as pest in any part of the globe as larvae are important aphid predators and adults might play an important role in pollination of flowering plants. S. grandicornis is not listed in any alert list or considered as a threatened species in any part of its native range.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Arthropoda
  •             Subphylum: Uniramia
  •                 Class: Insecta
  •                     Order: Diptera
  •                         Family: Syrphidae
  •                             Genus: Simosyrphus
  •                                 Species: Simosyrphus grandicornis

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

Taxonomic controversy has been associated with this species since Macquart (1842) described it. Macquart (1842) described Syrphus grandicornis based on an undetermined number of male specimens from Port Jackson, Australia. Bigot (1882) later erected a new genus, Simosyrphus, based on this species. Since then, authors have named this taxon under different genera or subgenera, as Xanthogramma grandicornis (Howard, 1901; Grimshaw, 1901), Xanthogramma (Simosyrphus) grandicornis (Hull, 1949), or Ischiodon grandicornis (Hardy, 1964), among other names.

Simosyrphus grandicornis bears a strong resemblance to the species of the genus Ischiodon, with which it has apparently often been confused (Vockeroth, 1969). This confusion started when Bezzi (1928) synonymyzed grandicornis under Ischiodon scutellaris (Fabricius, 1805). Both species are conspecific in Australia and some Pacific islands, but I. scutellaris is not found in Hawaiian Islands. Both genera are probably closely related but there are some morphological differences, such as male genitalia characters or the presence of a spine-like process in the metatrochanter of the males in Ischiodon, absent in the males of Simosyrphus. Vockeroth (1969) listed all the differences between these genera and gave a full description of them.

The synonymy of Ischiodon and Simosyrphus arose again when Láska et al. (2006) studied the immature stages of these taxa. In their survey, Láska et al. (2006) described the puparium of Simosyrphus grandicornis and found no difference in comparison with puparia of Ischiodon species. Moreover, the phylogenetic analysis based only on molecular sequences of the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) placed both genera as sister groups. Other molecular analyses (unpublished) do not recover this sister-group relationship, and the amount of morphological difference is enough to keep both genera as valid.

Vockeroth (1969) found a considerable variation in the abundance of wing microtrichia. Populations from Australia, New Caledonia, Loyalty Islands, New Hebrides, Fiji and Samoa show some difference in the wing pattern, and Vockeroth (1969) suggested that the Hawaiian populations may have an Australian origin due to their sparse and scattered microtrichia.

There is no widely used common name for most of the species of the family Syrphidae, including S. grandicornis. Most of the checked online sites refer to this species as ‘common hover fly,’ with the name yellow-shouldered stout hoverfly also used on many photographs of the insect from Australia.

Description

Top of page

Small, rather robust species with yellow-margined mesonotum, broad yellow fasciae or paired maculae on abdomen, and very large male genitalia. S. grandicornis has the anterior anepisternum bare; metasternum bare; scutum with well-defined yellow lateral vitta extending at least from postpronotum to suture; abdomen margined; vein R4+5 straight or nearly so; wing membrane with microtrichia very sparse and scattered, the apical third with at least narrow bare areas extending almost to apices of vein R4+5 and spurious vein; katepisternum without dorsal yellow macula; and male metatrochanter simple.

Length: body, 8-10 mm; wing, 7-8 mm.

Male

Head: Face with distinct round facial tubercle, yellow, yellow pilose; vertical triangle black, black pilose; antenna yellow, black pilose; arista dark brown, bare; eye bare, holoptic; occiput black, grey-silver pollinose, yellowish-white pilose on ventral 2/3 and brown pilose on dorsal 1/3.

Thorax: Scutum shining black with broad well-defined pale yellow lateral margin, which may be considerably narrowed posteriorly, yellow pilose; scutellum pale yellow, most of disc usually slightly brownish, black pilose; subscutellar fringe present, yellow. Pleura mostly shining black, except posterior anepisternum with a yellow marking on posterior half; katepisternum densely white pollinose dorsally. Metasternum bare. Calypter yellow; plumula yellow; halter yellow; posterior spiracular fringes yellow.

Wing: alula broad; vein R4+5 ending well before wing apex, its apical section curved slightly forward but less than in lschiodon. Microtrichia greatly reduced, absent or nearly so from basal half of wing, more abundant on apical half but membrane with at least very narrow bare areas along all longitudinal veins extending almost or quite to their apices.

Legs: Coxae and trochanters black, pro- and mesofemur black on basal half, the rest yellow. Metafemur black, yellow apically, the rest of the metaleg yellow. Tarsi darkened except basitarsomeres yellow.

Abdomen: oval, flattened, with strong margin from before middle of tergum 2 to end of tergum 5. Terga 2 to 4 each with a pair of large yellow maculae, those on 3 and 4 broadly reaching the base of the tergum, but not reaching lateral margin, and often narrowly or broadly joined. Sterna yellow, often with dark central maculae or subapical fascia.

Male genitalia (from Vockeroth, 1969): Sternite 8 (the last dorsal pregenital sclerite) in profile projecting scarcely if at all beyond tergite 9. Tergite 9 in profile sub quadrangular, broader posteriorly. Surstyli, sternite 9, superior lobes, base of aedeagus, and sublateral aedeagal processes slightly asymmetrical; apex of aedeagus strongly asymmetrical. Surstylus directed caudad, elongate, very narrow basally, slightly twisted, and irregularly broadened to uneven subtruncate apex; surstylar apodeme very short, broad, lying ventromediad of base of surstylus, covered laterally by strong minutely tuberculate membrane. Sternite 9 articulated at posteroventral angle of tergite 9, projecting caudad almost to level of apex of surstylus, posteroventrally with very broad deep anteriorly expanded emargination, and with strongly sclerotized anterior margin. Superior lobe strongly compressed, bare, subtriangular in profile, with slightly produced and subacute posteroventral angle, the two superior lobes moderately convergent dorsally. Aedeagus rather heavily sclerotized, not divided into separate basal and distal portions. Base of aedeagus broadly subtriangular both in ventral view and in profile; laterally on each side with a long slender sub cylindrical process which is slightly enlarged towards apex and ends in a broader, ventrally directed, flat flange; ventromedially slightly rugose, produced into a sub cylindrical distal portion which curves slightly dorsad, becomes rapidly wider at 1/3 its length, and ends in a swollen, extremely complex, highly asymmetrical structure with rather strongly sclerotized inner rods, hooks, and plates and with membranous apical sheaths.

Female

Similar to male except for normal sexual dimorphism and as follows: frons yellow, black on dorsal fourth, and black area pointing downward medially. Female with tergum 8 very much narrower than 7, weakly sclerotized, and usually retracted or nearly so under tergum 7.

Variation. Vockeroth (1969) noted the considerable variation in the abundance of wing microtrichia among populations. Specimens from various parts of Australia have the microtrichia on the apical half of the wing rather sparse, with extensive bare areas along the veins. Those from New Caledonia are slightly variable but usually have the microtrichia a little more dense. In specimens from the Loyalty Islands, New Hebrides, Fiji and Samoa the microtrichia are almost always quite dense and closely spaced, with only extremely narrow bare areas along the main longitudinal veins extending not quite to their apices. Specimens from Hawaii have sparse and scattered microtrichia, suggesting an Australian origin for the Hawaiian population (Vockeroth, 1969). Male genitalia of S. grandicornis show very slight individual variation in the shape and degree of asymmetry of the surstyli (Vockeroth, 1969).

Larvae

Láska et al. (2006) stated the diagnostic characters for the larva of S. grandicornis, which are repeated here: larva green with whitish median stripe. Segmental spines relatively short, fully developed only about 0.1–0.14 mm long, fleshy projections bearing segmental spines less developed, dried persist under several segmental spines on posterior part of dorsum of puparium as microtrichose portion (maximum length 0.05 mm). Microtrichia of cuticle colour or slightly dark brown pigmented, especially around segmental spines, but puparium without visible dark coloured pattern.

Posterior respiratory process (PRP): about 0.26–0.30 mm wide and 0.14–0.18 mm high (n = 2). Length of PRP about 0.1 mm. Carina I well developed, rounded apically (Láska et al., 2006).

Type material of this species, an undetermined number of male specimens collected in Port Jackson (Australia), are deposited in the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France (Thompson, 2013).

Distribution

Top of page

S. grandicornis is a very common Australasian species, found throughout Oceania (from New Caledonia and Fiji to Hawaii), New Zealand and Australia (all states). S. grandicornis is absent from New Guinea Island. The distribution table in this datasheet is based on records from literature and museum specimens. The acronym BPBM is used for The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, in Honolulu (Hawaii, USA), and NMNH refers to the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), in Washington D.C. (USA).

Due to the nomenclatural confusion, there might be some records of S. grandicornis as I. scutellaris, which are not included in this distribution table.

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

North America

USAPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-HawaiiWidespread2004Introduced1892Grimshaw, 1901; Howard, 1901; Hull, 1937; Hardy, 1964; Starr et al., 2006; Thompson, 2013Known from all the Northwestern Hawaiian islands except Lisianski, Laysan, Gardner Pinnacles, and Necker and from all the main islands except Ni’ihau and Lana’I (Nishida 2002; Starr et al., 2006)

Oceania

American SamoaPresentIntroducedPeck et al., 2014Reported from Rose Atoll as exotic by Peck et al. (2014). BPBM records from Tutuila
AustraliaWidespreadNativeThompson and Vockeroth, 1989; Thompson, 2013Found throughout. Specimens from Australian museums are collected from all states. NMNH records from Lord Howe Island.
-Australian Northern TerritoryWidespread1974Native
-New South WalesWidespread2012NativeMacquart, 1842
-QueenslandWidespread2012NativeKlocker, 1924
-South AustraliaWidespread1998Native
-TasmaniaWidespread2009Native
-VictoriaWidespread1992Native
-Western AustraliaWidespread2001Native
FijiPresentIntroducedBezzi, 1928; Hull, 1936; Hull, 1937; Thompson and Vockeroth, 1989BPBM records from Viti Levu, Oavalau, Vanua Levu and Vanua Balavu; NMNH records from Suva, Ovalau and Viti Levu (probably present in more islands). Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
French PolynesiaPresentIntroducedNishida, 2008Reported from Society Islands. Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
Johnston IslandPresentIntroducedBryan Jr, 1926; Shiraki, 1963Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region. NMNH records from Johnston Atoll
New CaledoniaPresentIntroducedBigot, 1884; Thompson and Vockeroth, 1989BPBM and NMNH records from Grande Terre Island, Loyalty Is., Lord Howe Is., and Norfolk Is. Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
New ZealandPresent2014IntroducedHutton, 1901; Miller, 1921; Thompson, 2008NMNH records from South Island. Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
SamoaPresentIntroducedNishida, 2008BPBM records from Savaii and Upolu. Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
TongaPresentIntroducedNishida, 2008BPBM records from Vavau, Tongetapu, Eua and Lifuka. NMNH records from Vavu. Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
TuvaluPresentIntroducedBPBM records from Funafuti. Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region
US Minor Outlying IslandsPresentIntroducedNishida and Beardsley, 2002; Hathaway and Fisher, 2010Midway Atoll and Palmyra Atoll
VanuatuPresentIntroducedBPBM records from Efate, Maewo, Tongariki, Aneytioum, Ambrym, Espiritu Santo, Malekula, Tanna, and Epi. NMNH records from Espiritu Santo
Wake IslandPresentIntroducedBryan Jr, 1926Status unknown but it might be introduced if its origin is the Australian Region

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

Due to its early introduction and the fact that the species is so widespread in the Pacific, there is a slight chance that this introduction happened naturally, or more likely by the early Polynesians (before the modern era) who might have brought the fly in as larva on fruits and plants they were transporting.

Howard (1901) and Grimshaw (1901) reported the first records of S. grandicornis in Hawaii and Oahu from specimens collected in 1892.

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

Adults of S. grandicornis are good dispersers but it is unlikely that they could reach the west coast of mainland USA without human help. Thus, the potential spread of this species into other areas is more likely to happen with immature stages: larvae or pupae on flowers, plants or fruits transported by humans. In the Australian region, it might be also possible to find S. grandicornis on other islands (including New Guinea) but these population also most likely arose from human activities.

Habitat

Top of page

S. grandicornis is very common in Australia and is found across Oceania. A study of the habitat of S. grandicornis has not been published. However, flower flies are more abundant where flowering plants are present. Adults feed on pollen and nectar, and it seems evident that S. grandicornis will be present in habitats where flowers are abundant. Williams (1931) reported that this species is abundant in cane fields in Hawaii, possibly due to availability of prey for the larvae.

Symptoms

Top of page

S. grandicornis is not considered a pest. Adults feed on pollen of several flowering plants and eventually on nectar, and theoretically may decrease the amount of pollen in an inflorescence. Immature stages are predators mostly on aphids and other soft-bodied arthropods (Rojo et al., 2003).

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

Little information on genetic variability within S. grandicornis is available. Cameron et al. (2007) published the whole mitochondrial genome of S. grandicornis (GenBank accession number DQ866050). Láska et al. (2006) published the 3’-fragment of the protein-coding COI gene (GenBank accession number AY603770). Boyes et al. (1971) studied the karyotype of S. grandicornis and found five pairs of chromosomes.

Nutrition

Adults feed on pollen and nectar of several flowering plant species. Immature stages are predators mostly on aphids and other soft-bodied arthropods.

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer Tolerated < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25])
BS - Steppe climate Preferred > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation
BW - Desert climate Preferred < 430mm annual precipitation
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer Preferred Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
22 46

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Diplazon laetatorius Parasite Juvenile not specific
Pachyneuron albutius Parasite Juvenile not specific

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

Two species of Hymenoptera parasitize S. grandicornis: Diplazon laetatorius (Fabricius, 1781), a member of the family Ichneumonidae (Perkins, 1913; Swezey, 1929); and Pachyneuron albutius Walker, 1843, a species of the family Pteromalidae (Timberlake, 1918, 1924). Hardy (1964) explained how D. laetatorius parasitizes the eggs of the syrphid and adult parasites emerge from the puparium of the host.

One nematode, Syphonema sp., has been found as parasite of S. grandicornis adults (Davies and Lloyd, 1996).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Accidental Introduction

Dispersal into many of the occupied oceanic islands in S. grandicornis’ range was due to human activities. Most oceanic islands are volcanic in origin, and so there were no members of the family Syrphidae originally. It is plausible that current species of flower flies were introduced by the early Polynesians who might have brought them in as larva on fruits and plants they were transporting.

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Cultural/amenity None
Economic/livelihood Positive
Environment (generally) Positive and negative
Human health None

Economic Impact

Top of page

There are no studies on the impacts of this species in its distribution range. The economic impact of the species may be positive as larvae feed on aphid pests (Broadley and Rogers, 1978; Carver, 1978) and adults may help provide pollination services to flowering plants.

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Impact on Biodiversity

S. grandicornis may be very numerous and dominant under certain climate conditions and a large number of individuals may increase inter-specific competition for food or other resources with other flower fly species and possibly displace more specialist native species.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Has a broad native range
  • Abundant in its native range
Impact mechanisms
  • Predation
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field

Uses

Top of page

Economic Value

Flower flies are one of the most important pollinator groups within the Diptera, because the adults visit flowers for pollen and nectar (Speight and Lucas, 1992; Pérez-Bañón et al., 2003; Ssymank and Kearns, 2009). After bees, they are the most important pollinator insect group with significance for many crops (such as apples, strawberry, cherry, canola and mustard) (Ssymank et al., 2009) and for an unknown number of other flowering plants. Based on larval requirements such as aphid predation, flower fly species are often adapted to agricultural management practices and may respond contrarily to wild bees to specific landscape features, suggesting they are important providers of pollination services at the landscape level (Jauker and Wolters, 2008; Rader et al., 2009; Jauker et al., 2009; 2012). In addition, larvae can play a major role in the biological control of important pests, such as aphids, white flies and scale insects, some with higher decimating effects on aphid colonies than those of insecticides (Broadley and Rogers, 1978; Carver, 1978; Rojo et al., 2003).

S. grandicornis might play the same role in its native habitat and might have an economic value, which is not evaluated yet.

Environmental Services

Although the pollen load or flower-visiting frequency of S. grandicornis has not been studied, it has the potential benefit of helping with the pollination of several flowering plants and may control some species of aphid pests (Broadley and Rogers, 1978; Carver, 1978).

Diagnosis

Top of page

No methods have been proposed or enacted for laboratory techniques to detect or identify this species. However, morphological identification is possible and quick. On the other hand, DNA barcoding can be used to identify immature stages or parts of adults using the sequence in GenBank as a reference.

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

In the field, the most commonly used traps to collect flower flies are the hand net and Malaise traps. Malaise traps are passive and non-selective traps and its use cannot recommended in natural protected areas.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

Simosyrphus has been often confused with Ischiodon species, especially I. scutellaris, as they are conspecific and the males of both species have large genitalia. The morphological characteristics to distinguish I. scutellaris are the basoflagellomere subacute apically (broadly rounded in Simosyrphus), katepisternum with a dorsal yellow marking (katepisternum black in Simosyrphus), metatrochanter with a spine-like process (metatrochanter simple in Simosyrphus), and metafemur mostly yellow, black only subapically (metafemur black, yellow on apical fourth in Simosyrphus).

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

No validated program is currently in place for monitoring flower fly presence or abundance. It would be desirable to know if S. grandicornis is becoming more abundant and dominant in its native and introduced ranges.

Little is known on the effect of introduced flower flies on plant-pollinator interaction networks, including effects of increased inter-specific competition and displacement on the stability of these systems. The same is most likely true for introduced larvae in food webs.

Another interesting study would be on the phenology of S. grandicornis, as well as its immature stages, life table and their functional response.

References

Top of page

Bezzi M, 1928. Diptera Brachycera and Athericera of the Fiji Islands based on material in the British Museum (Natural History). London, UK: British Museum (Natural History), 220 pp.

Bigot JMF, 1882. Descriptions of four new genera of the tribe Syphides (Syrphidae auctorum), as well as two new species. (Descriptions de quatre genres nouveaux de la tribu des Syphides (Syrphidae auctorum), ainsi que celles de deux nouvelles especes.) Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France, 6(2):lxvii-lxviii.

Bigot JMF, 1884. New or little known Diptera. 24 parts, XXXII: Syrphidi (2 parts). New species, no. III. (Dipteres nouveaux ou peu connus. 24 partie, XXXII: Syrphidi (2 partie). Especes nouvelles, no. III.) Annales de la Société entomologique de France, 6(4):73-80, 81-116.

Bowie MH, Gurr GM, Frampton CM, 2001. Adult and larval hoverfly communities and their parasitoid fauna in wheat in New South Wales, Australia. New Zealand Entomologist, 24:3-6.

Boyes JW, Brink JMvan, Boyes BC, 1971. Chromosomes of Syrphinae (Diptera: Syrphidae). Miscellaneous Publication of the Genetics Society of Canada. 158 pp.

Broadley RH, Rogers DJ, 1978. Pests of pangola grass in north Queensland pastures. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 104(4):320-324.

Bryan Jr EH, 1926. Diptera. In: Insects of Hawaii, Johnston Island and Wake Island. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 31 [ed. by Bryan Jr, E. H.]. 67-71.

Cameron SL, Lambkin CL, Barker SC, Whiting MF, 2007. A mitochondrial genome phylogeny of Diptera: whole genome sequence data accurately resolve relationships over broad timescales with high precision. Systematic Entomology, 32:40-59.

Carver M, 1978. The black citrus aphids, Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy) and T. aurantii (Boyer de Fonscolombe) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 17(3):263-270

Davies KA, Lloyd J, 1996. Nematodes associated with Diptera in South Australia: a new species of Fergusobia Currie from a fergusoninid and a new record of Syrphonema Laumond & Lyon from a syrphid. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia Incorporated, 120(1/2):13-20.

Goot VSvan der, 1964. Fluke's catalogue of Neotropical Syrphidae (Insects, Diptera), a critical study with an appendix on new names in Syrphidae. Beaufortia, 10:212-221.

Grimshaw PH, 1901. Diptera. In: Fauna Hawaiiensis, 3(1) [ed. by Sharp, D.]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1-77.

Hardy DE, 1964. Family Syrphidae Latreille. In: Insects of Hawaii, volume 11 - Diptera: Brachycera II, Cyclorrhapha I [ed. by Zimmerman, E. C.]. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press, 380-419.

Hathaway SA, Fisher RN, 2010. Biosecurity plan for Palmyra Atoll. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1097. 80 pp.

Howard LO, 1901. Diptera collected in Hawaii by H. Henshaw. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 4(4):490.

Hull FM, 1936. A check list of the described species of Syrphidae from Australia and the Regional Islands. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 18:190-212.

Hull FM, 1937. A check list of the Syrphidae of Oceania. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Occasional Papers, 13(10):79-87.

Hull FM, 1949. The Morphology and Inter-relationships of the Genera of Syrphid Flies, Recent and Fossil. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 26:257-408.

Hutton FW, 1901. Synopsis of the Diptera Brachyera of New Zealand. Transactions and proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 33:1-95.

Jauker F, Bondarenko B, Becker HC, Steffan-Dewenter I, 2012. Pollination efficiency of wild bees and hoverflies provided to oilseed rape. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 14(1):81-87. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1461-9563

Jauker F, Diekötter T, Schwarzbach F, Wolters V, 2009. Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat. Landscape Ecology, 24(4):547-555. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=103025

Jauker F, Wolters V, 2008. Hover flies are efficient pollinators of oilseed rape. Oecologia, 156(4):819-823. http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/l369116985484783/?p=8399a3de97ca4e8e939157a2ccdd4ad8&pi=8

Klocker A, 1924. On a collection of syrphids from Queensland with descriptions of a new genus and of eight new species. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 8:53-60.

Láska P, Pérez-Bañón C, Mazánek L, Rojo S, Stahls G, Marcos-García MA, Bicík V, Dušek J, 2006. Taxonomy of the genera Scaeva, Simosyrphus and Ischiodon (Diptera: Syrphidae): Descriptions of immature stages and status of taxa. European Journal of Entomology, 103:637-655.

Macquart PJM, 1842. New or little known exotic Diptera. Second volume, part 2. (Dipteres exotiques nouveaux ou peu connus. Tome deuxieme. 2e partie.) Memoires de la Société Royale des sciences, de l'agriculture et des arts de Lille, 1841(1):65-200.

Macquart PJM, 1846. New or little known exotic Diperta. Supplement. [1]. (Dipteres exotiques nouveaux ou peu connus. Supplement. [1].) Memoires de la Société Royale des sciences,de l'agriculture et des arts de Lille, 1844:133-364.

Macquart PJM, 1847. New or little known exotic Diptera. 2nd supplement (Dipteres exotiques nouveaux ou peu connus. 2.e supplement). Paris, France: Roret, 104 pp.

Miller D, 1921. Material for a monograph on the Diptera Fauna of New Zealand: Part II, Family Syrphidae. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute. Wellington, New Zealand: Marcus F. Marks Pubs., 289-333.

Nishida GM, 2002. Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist. Fourth Edition. Bishop Museum Technical Report, 22. 313 pp.

Nishida GM, 2008. French Polynesia Diptera Checklist. essigdb.berkeley.edu/checklists/fpDiptera.doc

Nishida GM, Beardsley JW, 2002. A review of the insects and related arthropods of Midway Atoll. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 68:25-69.

Peck R, Banko P, Pendleton F, Schmaedick M, Ernsberger K, 2014. Arthropods of Rose Atoll with special reference to ants and Pulvinaria urbicola scales (Hemiptera: Coccidae) on Pisonia grandis trees. Technical Report HCSU-057. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii at Hilo, 22 pp.

Pérez-Bañón C, Juan A, Petanidou T, Marcos-García MA, Crespo MB, 2003. The reproductive ecology of Medicago citrina (Font Quer) Greuter (Leguminosae): a bee-pollinated plant in Mediterranean islands where bees are absent. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 241(1/2):29-46.

Perkins RCL, 1913. Introduction. Fauna Hawaiiensis, 1(6):i-ccxxvii(xli-xlii).

Rader R, Howlett BG, Cunningham SA, Westcott DA, Newstrom-Lloyd LE, Walker MK, Teulon DAJ, Edwards W, 2009. Alternative pollinator taxa are equally efficient but not as effective as the honeybee in a mass flowering crop. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(5):1080-1087. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/jpe

Rojo S, Gilbert F, Marcos-García MA, Nieto JM, Mier MP, 2003. A World Review of Predatory Hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae: Syrphinae) and their Prey. CIBIO Ediciones.

Shiraki T, 1963. Diptera: Syrphidae. Insects Micronesia, 13(5):129-187.

Soleyman-Nezhadiyan E, Laughlin R, 1998. Voracity of larvae, rate of development in eggs, larvae and pupae, and flight seasons of adults of the hoverflies Melangyna viridiceps Macquart and Symosyrphus grandicornis Macquart (Diptera: Syrphidae). Australian Journal of Entomology, 37(3):243-248.

Speight MCD, Lucas JAW, 1992. Liechtenstein Syrphidae (Diptera). Berichte der Botanisch-Zoologischen Gesellschaft Liechtenstein-Sargans-Werdenberg, 19:327-463.

Ssymank A, Hamm A, Vischer-Leopold M, 2009. Caring for Pollinators. Safeguarding agro-biodiversity and wild plant diversity - Results of a workshop and research project commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. BfN-Skripten 25. Bonn, Germany: Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 191 pp.

Ssymank A, Kearns C, 2009. Flies - Pollinators on two wings. In: Caring for Pollinators - Safeguarding agro-biodiversity and wild plant diversity [ed. by Ssymank, A. \Hamm, A. \Vischer-Leopold, M.]. Bonn, Germany: Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 39-52.

Starr F, Starr K, Loope LL, 2006. New Arthropod Records from Kaho'olawe. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 88:47-53.

Swezey OH, 1929, December. Notes on the Egg-parasites of Insects in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 7(2):282-292 pp.

Thompson FC, 2008. A conspectus of New Zealand flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) with the description of a new genus and species. Zootaxa, 1716:1-20.

Thompson FC, 2013. Syrphidae. Systema Dipterorum. Version 1.5. http://www.diptera.org

Thompson FC, Vockeroth JR, 1989. Family Syrphidae. In: Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication, 86 [ed. by Evenhuis, N. L.]. Hawaii, USA 437-458.

Thompson FC, Vockeroth JR, Sedman YS, 1976. A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. 46. Family Syrphidae. A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. 46. Family Syrphidae. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo., 195 pp.

Timberlake PH, 1918. Notes on Some of the Immigrant Parasitic Hymenoptera of the Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 1917, 3(5):399-404 pp.

Timberlake PH, 1924. Records of the Introduced and Immigrant Chalcid-flies of the Hawaiian Islands (Hymenoptera). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 1923, 5(3):418-449 pp.

Vockeroth JR, 1969. A revision of the genera of the Syrphini (Diptera: Syrphidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 62:1-176.

Williams FX, 1931. Handbook of the Insects and other Invertebrates of Hawaiian Sugar Cane Fields. Honolulu. Hawaiian Sugar PL Ass., Expt. Sta., 400 pp.

Organizations

Top of page

USA: The Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum (BPBM), 1525 Bernice Street,, Honolulu, HI 96817,, http://www.bishopmuseum.org/

Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organiation - CSIRO, CSIRO Entomology GPO Box 1700, Canberra ACT 2601, http://www.csiro.au/org/Entomology.html

Principal Source

Top of page

Draft datasheet under review

Contributors

Top of page

28/01/15 Original text by:

Ximo Mengual, Zoological Research Museum, Germany

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map