Photo #4402: Dyscia innocentaria

26.08.2014 19:08, Evgeny Komarov

Well, so long, and let them be - try podsobrat of these points of view, and genitals can then to some reasonable conclusion we arrive. Species there are not rare.

25.08.2014 23:29, Alexandr Zhakov

Eugene, I agree with your comment. corrected. Hurry. irreversible attention to is not exactly accurate.

25.08.2014 23:11, Alexandr Zhakov Corrected data.

Confidently identified → Tentatively identified.

25.08.2014 20:45, Evgeny Komarov

Basil! I do not even dare to argue with the fact that confidently distinguish these types is only possible on the genitals. Therefore, as my and your definition of a series of "likely". Compared not only with photos of the work, but also with descriptions of the figure.I repeat - I do not insist on fidelity to its definition, but from our discussions can be a rational conclusion - no genitalia - definition of inaccurate and consequently, most of the pictures of nature Dyscia conspersaria / innocentaria is placed in the ill-defined. Something like that.

25.08.2014 19:06, Vasiliy Feoktistov

What I did that statement? Alexander, I just saw your pretty categorical transfer suggested master photo. Sometimes I think you just do not quarrel with someone is sometimes.

25.08.2014 18:38, Alexandr Zhakov

Vasiliy Feoktistov, please do not make such statements, we have agreed about the Palearctic. and the grounds for transfer back I can not see.
Eugene Kamarova, I suffered this photo after consultation and arguments Basil Sergienko. Of course it is desirable to do the opposite, first argument, then the transfer. I offer my apologies for that.With these views we have dealt several times. 100% guarantee can only cooking. But now define more accurate than inaccurate :)

25.08.2014 16:12, Basil Sergienko

1, the word "confident" too much in your comments, I said that I probably now hold this view
2 if the butterfly is not cooked, the authoritative opinion even spices, only a guess.
3 You say that the article was determined by Zolotukhin, an issue on which the image is similar to your copies.and why were 2 under fagariey clearly fagarii?
4 I had the opportunity to images konspersarii to be 5 volume GME, there is not very similar to your copies. (Although it is not clear why g.Skou took copies.the beginning of the last century)
5 and of the arguments (they are weak, 100% only cook) -innosentariya butterfly common in the Crimea and yugah, usually with a good pattern, spotty fringe, often with a median shadow and shine. Konspersariya rare butterfly usually not very pronounced pattern and shine otsutst.
I'm a span Offline (Geometridae.Ennominae) will set 3100 and 2% conspersaria innocentaria- compare.
I stand by my opinion that is not the ultimate truth.

25.08.2014 15:57, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Then one carries Vasily: I :) And I carry it once again, and did not dare ....... Eugene, I can bring her back. Return?

25.08.2014 12:41, Evgeny Komarov

All my pictures this kind of determined to work Pugaev SN, Zolotukhin VV moth genus Dyscia Hübner, [1825] (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) of the Lower and Middle Volga. Eversmannia 2006, vol. 6. Evgeny Tsvetkov and tested. Therefore, I was surprised by a steady transfer of Basil picture innocentaria, especially given the variability of the species of this group. Well would be inaccurate.Looking arguments, and then you can naperenosit ...

25.08.2014 11:17, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Eugene arguments apparently here: http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/4403 (post dated 08/14/2014 22:39). To me, they seemed inconclusive and therefore did not carry. I look forward to, so well as you explain.

25.08.2014 0:00, Evgeny Komarov

It does not agree with the transfer of photos from Dyscia conspersaria in Dyscia innocentaria. I would like to hear the arguments of Basil. This photo at the time checked E. Tsvetkov.

22.08.2014 21:54, Alexandr Zhakov Corrected data.

Dyscia conspersaria / Evgeny Komarov → Dyscia innocentaria / Basil Sergienko.