Photo #34236: Amphipoea sp.

14.08.2015 7:40, Vasiliy Feoktistov Corrected data.

Not identified → Amphipoea / Confidently identified / Vasiliy Feoktistov.

18.10.2014 14:16, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Judging by the majority of photos (though it is not known how and by whom specific) 2, I dismiss the other: because they seem to catch this one, side by side, no one does not like, though there is also determined by the pictures :). In general, the nature of the basis of your statements can not be no one even inaccurate to put :)

18.10.2014 13:39, Alexandr Zhakov

This can be any of four types :)))

18.10.2014 13:24, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Well, let them, then, is hanging in uncertain. These two species, by the way, the site no photos, even inaccurate.

18.10.2014 13:09, Alexandr Zhakov

From the photographs Amphipoea not determined. By female genitalia, these two species differ ok :)))

18.10.2014 12:55, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Amphipoea sp. Female genitalia, obviously unlikely, if, say something (Therefore I propose to decide where it is best to put in inaccurate :) In my opinion it is, orAmphipoea crinanensis, orAmphipoea lucens?