Tabanus fuscicostatus

Hine, 1906

Tabanus fuscicostatus is a of horse fly in the Tabanidae, first described by Hine in 1906. The species has been the subject of -level research examining how parity rates—the proportion of females that have previously oviposited—respond to changes in availability. Like other horse flies, are likely blood-feeders with females requiring blood meals for development, while larvae are typically predatory or scavenging in aquatic or semi-aquatic environments.

Tabanus fuscicostatus by (c) Louise Woodrich, some rights reserved (CC BY), uploaded by Louise Woodrich. Used under a CC-BY license.

Pronunciation

How to pronounce Tabanus fuscicostatus: /tɑˈbɑnʊs ˌfʊskɪkoʊˈsteɪtəs/

These audio files are automatically generated. While they are not always 100% accurate, they are a good starting point.

Images

Diet

females are known to blood-feed on vertebrate ; the specific host range for this has not been documented in available sources. Larval feeding habits are presumed to follow the typical tabanid pattern of or scavenging in moist substrates, but direct observations have not been reported.

Life Cycle

involves oviposition by females, with parity rate (proportion of females that have previously oviposited) serving as a measurable demographic parameter. Parity rates in have been observed to change in response to availability, suggesting flexible reproductive scheduling based on resource access. Detailed developmental stages and duration have not been documented.

Human Relevance

The has been studied in the context of control measures and their effects on , with parity rate monitoring used to assess reproductive status. Direct medical or veterinary significance has not been specifically documented for this species.

More Details

Research significance

T. fuscicostatus has served as a model organism for studying how demographics respond to reduction strategies, with parity rate changes indicating altered reproductive patterns under resource limitation.

Taxonomic status

The is recognized as valid in GBIF and Catalogue of Life, though iNaturalist records are extremely sparse (1 observation), suggesting it may be underreported, difficult to identify, or genuinely uncommon.

Tags

Sources and further reading