Insecta.pro Community

Pages: 1 ...46 47 48 49 50

15.01.2011 2:22, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

I've got ssp. ducenarius.

14.01.2011 17:19, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Hey, what about subspecies classifying??? Look at nephelus guys, they are sooo different. Confusing.

14.01.2011 17:14, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3307

According to Tuzov and Co, that is Amur and Ussuri regions; central and NE. China, Korea.

14.01.2011 17:12, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Also add its underside, please. This crew is not easy one, so everyone should see that.

14.01.2011 17:08, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3307

Sorry for pickiness, but for me personally labels are the most important things to believe in.

14.01.2011 17:03, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3307

Yes, Limenitis amphyssa, label is wrong.

14.01.2011 16:47, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

And "nephelus" should be parenthesized.

14.01.2011 16:42, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3140

Can't specify its subspecies having no label. Better remove subspecies and sign "male".

14.01.2011 16:36, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Think, better to leave that as nephelus subspecies.

14.01.2011 8:32, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Yes, but nowadays it's rather considered to be an individual species, see Wynter-Blyth, M. A., 1982; Butterflies of the Indian Region.

14.01.2011 8:06, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Bingo finally!!! So easy case. Only Papilio chaon can have such underside! And it is in North India also!

14.01.2011 7:42, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Well, "India" sign should be removed then. If this one is Papilio sataspes, it's Sulawesi 99% sure.

14.01.2011 5:45, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3140

Just for the record, I have a true photo of this subspecies from Mexico. If needed.

14.01.2011 5:39, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

Sataspes is surely bigger than any helenus. I happened to catch last ones of machaon size.

14.01.2011 5:35, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3020

Papilio thoas oviedo, Gundlach, 1866.

14.01.2011 5:31, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3115

This one is Marpesia berania (Hewitson, 1852).

14.01.2011 5:28, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3113

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 5:24, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3140

How could you manage to identify its subspecies having no label??? And there is no such subspecies, this is synonym to Opsiphanes invirae cuspidatus, Stichel 1904, i. e. Central America.

14.01.2011 5:17, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3331

No. This is Eurytides harmodius (Doubleday, 1846).

14.01.2011 5:15, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3330

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 5:14, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3329

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 5:13, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3328

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 5:12, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3327

This is Battus crassus (Cramer, 1777), nominative.

14.01.2011 5:09, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3326

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 5:08, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3590

No, Papilio sataspes can be in Indonesia only. If really caught in India, then it's Papilio helenus. Or no label again?

14.01.2011 5:00, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3307

I think, that is Limenitis populi female, dark.

14.01.2011 4:58, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3307

Limenitis amphyssa in the Caucasus??? Holy god! Underside, please.

14.01.2011 4:53, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3525

This one is not Graphium aristeus but Graphium nomius (Esper, 1798).

14.01.2011 4:49, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3524

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 4:47, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3589

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 4:46, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3588

Cyrestis thyodamas formosana, Fruhstorfer.

14.01.2011 4:45, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3580

Ideopsis similis persimilis (Moore, 1879).

14.01.2011 4:43, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3579

Parantica aglea phormion, Fruhstorfer, 1910.

14.01.2011 4:41, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3663

This species is identified correctly.

14.01.2011 4:40, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3848

Assimilis subspecies (Linnaeus, 1758).

14.01.2011 4:39, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3847

Assimilis subspecies (Linnaeus, 1758) .

14.01.2011 4:37, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3846

If it's South China (Yunnan, apparently), so must be Sasakia charonda yunnanensis Fruhstorfer.

14.01.2011 4:30, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3139

Please, don't use yandex. Google definitely wins.

14.01.2011 4:10, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3139

Oh, Vasily, my congrats!!! This one is Lexias hikarugenzi male, Tsukada & Nishiyama, 1980, North Luzon, Philippines. That's the butterfly!

14.01.2011 4:01, Dmitriy Pozhogin: comment on photo #3578

This one is 99% sure Euploea blossomae, Schaus, 1929. As for subspecies, that's tricky, the exact label needed. If that was shot at Mindanao island northeast, then it's hilogensis, Yamamoto & Takei, 1992. If Mindanao island south (Mt. Apo), then sibulanensis, Jumalon, 1971. There is female on this photo.