Noctuidae: Toxocampinae

  Lygephila lupina (Graeser, 1890) RFE, Dalnegorsk, 13.VIII.2009, http://macroid.ru/showphoto.php?photo=36143

[url=http://macroid.ru/showphoto.php?
http://macroid.ru/showphoto.php?photo=36143&delhist=361194

The post was edited by Gennadich - 19.04.2017 18: 26

Maybe I'm wrong, but we would rather have L. ludicra, although judging by your book, where, say, our Calophasia ocalina turns into Acontia lucida(and not only), then everything can be.

Maybe I'm wrong, but we would rather have L. ludicra, although judging by your book, where, say, our Calophasia ocalina turns into Acontia lucida(and not only), then everything can be.

Damn it! And now how to perceive the rest there?

Apparently, the other authors missed the unreliable definitions of Stas (since he is not a sovochnik). Seven nannies, in short.

What other mistakes did anyone notice? I think Stas would be able to check and redefine the material, publish these amendments and make the pdf publicly available (and send it to those who bought the book).

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 21.04.2017 22: 29

There are indeed errors in the captions to the tables in noctuoid lepidoptera of Kyrgyzstan. Here they are:

plate 5 – number 16 – Dichagyris signifera – must be Dichagyris orientis
plate 9 – number 3 – Agrochola spectabilis – must be Cucullia spectabilisoides
plate 9 – number 13 – Ammogrotis suavis – must be Erythrophaia suavis
plate 10 – number 17 – Metasia criophora – must be Himalistra eriophora
plate 11 – number 7 – Dichagyris melanura – must be Caradrina sp.
plate 11 – number 13 – Euxoa nigricans – must be Euxoa ochrogaster
plate 14 – number 24 – Acontia lucida – must be Calophasia opalina

And the point here is not in the definitions, but in the fact that quite a lot of things changed on the tables during operation (some images were replaced by others), and I simply did not follow the changes not only in the tables, but also in their signatures.

There are no other errors on the tables. The tables were verified by A. Matov yesterday.

Yes, in pursuit. I didn't define complex groups of scoops.

Well, this one is already similar to craccae, and the previous one is ludicra.

  

There are no other errors on the tables.

Oh, I don't like categorical answers. I looked at the book for a long time, took it at the university, - I remember in some table a butterfly is unsigned, then I would like Bryophilinae to be viewed by a specialist and some other European butterfly caused doubts(I may be mistaken), this is again necessary to take the book.
Regarding Lygephila, here is one from Kyrgyzstan, and the second is ours , the first I identified as ludicra, the second is typical craccae, yours, in my opinion, is no different from mine. Well, we have Barko here ,if I'm wrong, it will correct

Lygephila craccae
Kyrgyzstan, Jumgaltoo cr., Sary-Kaiky massif. One of the most common types of scoops of the Inner Tien Shan.

Another craccae from Kyrgyzstan. In the Western Tien Shan, they are somewhat lighter. Although this instance is very broken.

upper ludicra, lower craccae

//dev null

... I would like Bryophilinae to be viewed by a specialist ...

There are mostly photos of the types, but there are no complaints about the types. Error 4: 24, signed raptricula, but actually in the photo receptricula.

Yes, yes. it was raptricula that caused great doubt, as far as I remember, I also told Kostyuk that he took 4 books to Germany at the request of the Germans. Thank you.