Insecta.pro Community
Pages: 1 ...117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125... 141
Updated: Philippines.
Moved.
Moved.
Fixed.
Moved.
Goes to Aphantopus.
Moved/activated.
To "uncertain"?
To go.
To go.
Ok then, moved.
Meh. That's some leftovers of a past identifying. Will remove.
Moved.
Moved.
Moved.
To go.
Nooo. If that was question "what's this?", there should have been something between "this" and" the number of the shot (not just space), say, dash.
Hm, thought it over for serious before realized that you meant "this species" instead of "this shot". Meh...
To go.
Ok then, moved.
I may lack of the statistic of website users and their needs, but certainly 0.75 is more true. Anyway, you have a point that it's always better to have as much info as possible. Nevertheless, without location map it's not so handy yet...
This is my blunder, I published not noticing that it was already applied to a species, even signed. Will move it right now.
As for null value, you overdid for sure ;--) In this website it can never have a null value, and it will be more reasonable to mention shot/caught location when it will be possible at last to mark location at a map (I'll working out it right now).
Moved too. Sorry, that not at the time.
Moved.
Moved.
Moved.
Moved/activated.
Yeah, right, but in this case it should be identified but named differently (at the personal page). Whatever.
Weird that was named in comments and not moved to "identified"... Moved.
That's pretty weird that already named in comments was not moved to "identified"...
Gentlemen moderators, approve, please...
Ok, moved. Alexandr, add synonym, please, if you're sure it has point. Ok?
Ok then, moved.
Guys, database the species, please.
Guys, what about this species is not yet databased, huh?
That was about "better" or "worse"?
Moved.
Guys, add species, please...
Sum up, that's it or not?
Look at the original photo there: http://lepidoptera.pro/8271.jpg. Height was 769 pix, so it had to be a little bit cut. Basically, he checked "No to any retouching" box, so I just cut it and got small photo, no more. For the large photo I used a new software, so there should be no blunders, and for small one I did old, so that can be somehow wrongly scaled.
Well, ok then, no fuss. Variety sounds cool.
Moved.
Evgeny, do you mean 320 pixel shot or large size?
Nobody is against. I'm just trying to realize if it should get "identified successfully" status or "uncertain".
Thanks, moving.
Evgeny, identified or uncertain?
Must be Igor, cause users can add only their own images... Let's not limit ourselves to photos only, but if there will be many pictures, we'll think about how to improve search to find only photos or pictures separatedly.
Moved and activated.
Yeah, not by photos alone.
News
- 09.04.2024: Recognition of species/taxa by file names of uploaded photos has become more convenient
- 28.03.2024: We changed timeouts for the author to edit some data for his photos on the website
- 19.03.2024: Insecta.pro and the entomological forum Integration
New photos (18.04.2024)
Fresh from the community
- 18:03, P. Khramov: A nice video from 2004 with Oleg Go...
- 13:02, P. Khramov: Bombus → Bombus sylvestris....
Popular insects
Recommended blog topics
- A. Gordon, O. Gorbunov, V. Murzin on Russian TV in 2004
- 20th International Insect Fair in Moscow (Russia, October 2023)
- The petition in defense of biological nomenclature
- Artist Paul Villinski brought butterflies to East Rockaway School, NY
