Identification difficulty = 3.
according to Ball & Morris, 20241
On the continent, the larva is reported to be associated with aphids on the roots of white umbels. Found in taller and lusher vegetation than P. viduata, in situations like woodland and scrub edges, the fringes of wetlands, and cliff top and other coastal grassland. Adults stay close to the ground and will bask on sun-lit leaves, but are sometimes found visiting taller flowers including white umbels.
The following plots show the number of unique records per week that were not reported to be of eggs, larvae or pupae.
Was listed as 'Notable' by Falk, 19912, but dropped from this status by Ball & Morris, 20143 who consider it LOWER RISK.
Much scarcer than P. viduata, this species is largely restricted to the lowlands of south-east England, although there are a few records from northern England, south-west England and Wales. Separation from P. viduata requires care and is best done by examination of the male terminalia which are figured by van der Goot (1981)4. Old records from more northerly locations must be questionable.
The following plots show the Frescalo TFactor vs year and a map of the rescaled frequency (all records) for the species. For an explanation see here.
Ball, S., & Morris, R. (2024). Hoverflies of Britain and Ireland. WILDGuides (3rd ed.). Oxford: Princeton University Press. ↩
Falk, S. (1991). A review of the scarce and threatened flies of Great Britain. ( No. 39). Research and Survey in Nature Conservation (pp. 1–194). Peterborough: NCC. ↩
Ball, S., & Morris, R. (2014). A review of the scarce and threatened flies of Great Britain. Part 6: Syrphidae. ( No. 9). Species status (pp. 1–130). Peterborough: JNCC. ↩
van der Goot, V. (1981). De zweefvliegen van Noordwest-Europa en Europees Rusland, in het bijzonder van de Benelux. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging. ↩