E-mail: Password: Create an Account Recover password

About Authors Contacts Get involved Русская версия

show

On confirmation of allegiance to identify species in the photo

Community and Forum → Website news and updates → On confirmation of allegiance to identify species in the photo

Peter Khramov, 12.01.2011 22:03

Citizens, if the run past the photo page, on which kind of defined right, not too lazy to leave this review. This confirmation will also be helpful, but do it is now even easier - you just need to click "Confirm" in the comments section. And nothing more.

Comments

12.01.2011 22:35, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Peter, and what kinds of unconditional confirm? After all, if the photo does not match the mind is always possible to improve. I suppose if you do not know what kind and will not undertake to confirm.

12.01.2011 22:39, Peter Khramov

Basil, the meaning of my message was the following: people are currently on site, looking photos. He agrees that the definition is correct (ie, he knows what kind of right). He picks up and presses a button "Confirm", causing confidence to such a snapshot in the future there will be more. If the person does not know whether it is true essno, he did not press.And especially to wander through the gallery just to confirm a bunch of truck - also probably not worth the time spent. But at the same time, viewing the photos - very good will.

12.01.2011 22:44, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Clearly, the way Photo # 4158 endure boldly where I wrote (it's red-stopudovo) probably fell wrong.

12.01.2011 23:18, Alexandr Zhakov

Do not display comments in the confirmation message of some kind. Through conscientious visitors all other comment will be lost. :)

12.01.2011 23:39, Peter Khramov

Actually, yes, there is such a danger. On the other hand, it can not be just a minor comment and confirmation of the type of which the dispute is or is not defined precisely. In general, while the leave, and look, it will be a lot of evidence in a row to override everything else.If there is a lot - then in the list of "Community" will hide them. Moreover, that soon there will be a section in which the individual will go to the comments fotam and previous commentaries / user themes, and there is already possible to confirm easily publish.

13.01.2011 6:59, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Wrote that Stichophthalma howqua Westwood, 1851 is not defined correctly, the picture Stichophthalma louisa Wood-Mason, 1877. It is still January 8. I understand we need a credit of trust of some in order to properly determine the podverzhdaet. I see no more sense something confirms or check.

13.01.2011 7:41, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Dmitry calmer. The site has just started work and fix all the problems at once seemed impossible (admin we have one, and a great deal of the work).
By the way: it is not synonymous hour?

13.01.2011 8:04, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Yes, actually it is Louise and transfer is necessary: ​​http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/3934/

13.01.2011 12:36, Peter Khramov

Dmitriy,
About January 8 - the last time there were a lot of technical updates, photos, and treatments of comments - not so much. Since yesterday there is, on the contrary, the emphasis on processing content.
About the trust - here, as usual, it turns out empirically.Through some (usually not very big) while it becomes clear who is commenting on what a good understanding, and what - not. I think some formal assessments and tolerance on this issue is not worth doing.About occasions to confirm or check - please specify what has changed (from unexplained higher) that have an impact on this attitude?

13.01.2011 20:36, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Vasily Feoktistov- there are not synonymous, and mix them very difficult. They are completely different. It can be confused with Stichophthalma louisa Stichophthalma fruhstorferi, and that difference can be seen. Stichophthalma howqua more like Stichophthalma neumogeni they are orange.
Petr Khramov, 22:39 12.01.2011

Basil, the meaning of my message was the following: people are currently on site, looking photos. He agrees that the definition of true (ieHe knows what kind of right). He picks up and presses a button "Confirm", causing confidence to such a snapshot in the future there will be more

Strangely, the man goes and pushes Th wants. When you define the look and point to oshibku- is ignored.Do not think it's my hysteria, and is ready to help with photos and with the definition of almost all day gabitalnyh including the tropics, except golubeschek, riodinid and tolstogolovok

14.01.2011 3:25, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Dmitry, yes there is no offense whatsoever. It's just that Peter is now worries, and so I think the car with the site and not to just reach right hand. By ECOTA: I will be grateful if you will look my photo # 3577; # 3578; # 3139; # 2972 ​​is already hanging here more than a year in the uncertain (and on molbiole too) and the rest of my earlier laid out exotics you look for the correct (thank God there are no more of me).They Trouble (gets through tenth hand, and sometimes no data).

14.01.2011 3:31, Dmitriy Pozhogin

and as these photos to see ???

14.01.2011 3:46, Vasiliy Feoktistov

"Gallery " / "Photographer " (I'm here) / "type undefined " or "All photos " / the "Print ". Uhh mistakes can be me, and to correct it :).

14.01.2011 3:48, Vasiliy Feoktistov

"Gallery " / "Photographer " (I'm here) / "type undefined " or "All photos " / the "Print ". Uhh mistakes can be me, and to correct it :).

14.01.2011 4:03, Dmitriy Pozhogin

These photos can not find # 3139; # 2972

14.01.2011 4:08, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Yes, they should be: Moth Nymphalidae Millionia Filipino and some without any labels.

14.01.2011 4:17, Dmitriy Pozhogin

For millions will not undertake. Not strong and literature.

14.01.2011 4:22, Vasiliy Feoktistov

D and in the internet with them difficult. So let uncertain in Powys.

14.01.2011 4:33, Dmitriy Pozhogin

What else to see / check ???

14.01.2011 4:39, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Yes, my other exotics: sailboats, Nymphalidae.

16.01.2011 15:38, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Peter! Offer Neographium born to unite with the family Eurytides yet. Piled everything in Neographium not clear on what basis, and synonyms when making a new type of point race Neographium.

16.01.2011 15:45, Vasiliy Feoktistov

So these two kinds like everywhere Eurytides were. When they began Neographium?

16.01.2011 15:50, Peter Khramov

Do I understand that Neographium marcellus can safely be described as Eurytides marcellus?

16.01.2011 15:50, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Today we know 45 species and 12 species Eurytides Neographium. Neographium kind described Möhn, 2002; Die Schmetterlinge der Erde, 14: 2, TS although often written as a subgenus.

16.01.2011 15:51, Dmitriy Pozhogin

In my opinion Eurytides (Neographium) marcellus

16.01.2011 15:55, Vasiliy Feoktistov

That's what I think the same.

16.01.2011 16:01, Peter Khramov

Rhode Neographium removed from the system, marcellus ordered to Eurytides with prostanovkoy as a synonym Neographium marcellus.

New comment

Note: you should have a Insecta.pro account to upload new topics and comments. Please, create an account or log in to add comments.

* Our website is multilingual. Some comments have been translated from other languages.

Random species of the website catalog

Insecta.pro: international entomological community. Terms of use and publishing policy.

Project editor in chief and administrator: Peter Khramov.

Curators: Konstantin Efetov, Vasiliy Feoktistov, Svyatoslav Knyazev, Evgeny Komarov, Stan Korb, Alexander Zhakov.

Moderators: Vasiliy Feoktistov, Evgeny Komarov, Dmitriy Pozhogin, Alexandr Zhakov.

Thanks to all authors, who publish materials on the website.

© Insects catalog Insecta.pro, 2007—2024.

Species catalog enables to sort by characteristics such as expansion, flight time, etc..

Photos of representatives Insecta.

Detailed insects classification with references list.

Few themed publications and a living blog.