Development of a common insect catalog website

About Lycaena virgaureae — I will answer in this topic, because the buggy view has already been removed, and the data from it has been transferred to the correct page. The fact is that when major updates to the taxon database are made, it is not always possible to immediately catch all similar species (i.e., whether a species from the database that is already on the site matches a species from a new source). The process runs in semi-automatic mode with subsequent manual verification, but since taxa are compared in thousands, there are also errors/glitches. This results in an incomplete duplicate of the view that was already there before the update. This is what happened in this case. Thank you for noticing, I've now fixed everything.
Accordingly, Vasily's assumption that this happened because everyone in a row can add new views is incorrect. Only moderators can add views, and ordinary registered users can only add information to them, but not the taxa themselves.

"Aricia agestis
Time of summer
May June July August"
Time of summer where? In Cyprus or in the Central Ural region of Russia?
I think you should specify the region for which the time of summer and the number of generations are given.
In the Crimea, for example, in warm years, the species flies from April to December. In Cyprus, perhaps, the period of summer can be even wider.

Vladimir. At the top of the page with the description of the type are short / generalized / formalized features. You need them to quickly take a quick look at everything, and also to find this view in the catalog by feature (for example, by month of summer time).
Therefore, information about months from different regions is entered here.
But below, in the detailed information section (and now temporarily also in the section of the old description, since not all the information was transferred from there to the new system), more detailed data about the regions is indicated, or it can be calculated by the name of the source.
If there is a more correct and convenient system — suggest it.
As for the data about Crimea and Cyprus — you can enter them on the corresponding page, after which they are transferred by supervisors to formal signs. There are not enough hands, and the transfer may be delayed. But this is another question, as for the literacy of the system itself-I don't see any alternatives here.

Typo: "Sunbeam".

Corrected it. Together with the transfer, we will also get rid of the highly artistic formulations that are found in old descriptions, including in the feed section.

This post was edited by Asar - 21.10.2013 14: 20

At the top of the page with the description of the type are short / generalized / formalized features.
They are needed so that this view can be found in the catalog by attribute (for example, by month of summer time).

If I set the attribute "summer month October", will I find agestis? If not, then it turns out that these signs do not always perform their function.

If I set the attribute "summer month October", will I find agestis? If not, then it turns out that these signs do not always perform their function.

Vladimir, perhaps we are dancing from a little different things, and therefore not a complete understanding. See:
Let's take a typical book catalog or, for example, a site with a significant geographical restriction. In such works, the author (s) thoroughly know the composition of the lepidofauna of the region described and indicate a lot of accurate information for each species, both drawn from other sources and obtained independently (ideally). They can draw an approximate map of the area, describe when someone will fly, including details on parts of the area within the territory described, typical food plants here and there, etc. In the book version (and sometimes in the site version), the work is not published at all until (almost) all the information on all the types included in it is extracted.
You can't do this in a butterfly catalog without geographical restrictions. In any case, by modest means :-- ) Therefore, it starts from a certain minimum, and then gradually replenishes, the information in it becomes more and more. But still, it will always display the following situation (using the example of summer time):
— There will be types for which there is no data on this topic at all on the site, because no one has entered it yet.
— There will be types for which information is entered from one or two sources, and such information is far from complete.
— There will be types for which there is more data — perhaps not all of them, but still, the time of summer is indicated for different regions from many sources, etc.
And we need to establish a single system for all these options, not just for the third one. To make it convenient for the user:
A) Find a species by parameters without knowing its name (or knowing/assuming only a higher taxon than the species).
B) View information about the view on the view page when it has found it (or thinks it has found it, compares it with others, etc.)
Here you are about Aricia agestis. And the person is looking for it, including by the time of summer. For this type, the site now has the second case, i.e. the information is only from one source, it is incomplete. If a person chooses September, they will not find this species — not because the system is crooked, but because there is no information about September for this species (at the imago stage) at all on the site. Putting months as signs on the site means that there is data that the imago flies in these months, but it does not mean that it does not fly in other months. If it is known for certain that there is no summer in other months, then this should be indicated inside the description page, and not in catalog selections.
Realizing that the information may not be complete, it will expand the range of values or not use this feature at all for this sample. This is bad, but here you can only try to enter more information, again, understanding that there will always be uncovered views.
If there is no information about the time of summer for this species at all, there are two options: assume that those species for which data on the time of summer on the site are not yet available fit the selected range of months (so as not to miss possible options) or assume that they do not fit (so as not to drown in the sea quite distant species, when the answer is on the surface). Since one or the other approach may be more convenient for different cases, I plan to make a check mark with which the user can choose what they want to observe each time — a more accurate option that may miss unnecessary views or vice versa.
In my opinion, there is nothing else here...

So I say-you need to specify the region for which information about the months of summer is available.
For example, in this case, something like this: The time of summer in central Russia is May-August.
At a minimum, give summer ranges for the "cold" and "warm" parts of the range. For example:: In the northern part of the range of years from XXX to XXX. In the south of the range XXX-XXX.

So I'd love to. But.
1) There is no such data for many types on the site, not even in a formalized, "free" form.
2) If there were, then it is very difficult to formalize them for search. I.e. you will need to specify the month, and then what? Should I specify the south or north of the area? And how does a person know whether he has the south or the north, if he does not even know the type, but searches for them (types) by parameters? Ideally, it would be possible to specify the area and automatically pick up information for it (and not just for the north/south), i.e. for example, now you can choose "September" and "France" but this will work as "Years in general in September" and "the area generally includes France", and not "years in France in September", but for this (so that the program on the site understands "years in France in September"), you need much more source data than is currently available on the site.

I didn't find data on the time of summer of this type by region on the page...

The info is taken from the old description, the old description is from a German book. Due to the fact that the data from the old description has not yet been migrated, the source is not obvious, and this is bad. I will transfer for bundles of views at once, but this is a long thing.
Resume: as I see the situation, the disadvantages all come from an insufficient amount of initial information on the site, and not from the system as such. The system, of course, also has its limitations, but it turns out that this is the right compromise — squeezes at the top and details at the bottom of the page. And where without compromises, when there are already 77,000 species in the database...

This post was edited by Asar - 21.10.2013 18: 54

Such a question, about the glitches I find on lepidoptera.ru where is it better to report? Is it possible in this topic, or is it better to do something different? Or maybe not at all?

Such a question, about the glitches I find on lepidoptera.ru where is it better to report? Is it possible in this topic, or is it better to do something different? Or maybe not at all?

Are you registered there? There is a separate section for comments on the site: "Community" but only registered users can write there. If you don't have one and don't want to register, you can write to Asar or me personally. Corrective actions will be taken.

Vasily is generally right, let me clarify a little: if the glitch concerns a specific species, then leave a comment on the view page, if photos-then on the photo page, if the glitch is common to a certain group of taxa or it is technical - then create a separate topic in the Community. Soon there will be a special unit for this case, but for now you can do without a special unit.
And of course you need to report it :--)

There is also such a suggestion. Applies to the summer time selection.
As I understand it, at the moment the time of summer is not indicated for all butterflies.
And those for which it is not specified are not included in the selection.
For example, if I specify a Family:Tortricidae, Country/Region:Ukraine, Summer time: August, then 1 (one) type is issued. Which is somewhat confusing.

So, actually, a suggestion: is it possible to add to the list of months another, 13th option: "no data"? With a clear meaning. Then you can choose like this:
Summer time: August - - - it will be as it is now;
Summer time: August OR no data --- it will also output those types for which the summer time is not entered in the database.

As I wrote to Vladimir above, I plan to make a check mark so that the user can adjust for himself, those types for which there is no data, include in the selection or not include (by default, do not include). With the help of this universal solution, you will be able to overcome the problem you have voiced too.

I'm sorry, I didn't see it, I read it diagonally. This is of course also a good option.

.....For example, in this case, something like this: The time of summer in central Russia is May-August.

As I understand it, we are talking about Aricia agestis. In the middle band of years only from the MIDDLE (south of the band - Lipetsk region) or the END (middle of the band - Tula - Kaluga - Moscow) of May to September (at least, because in the warm days of October I was not in Lipetsk, and in Kaluga and Tula it is no longer there after the Indian summer), in 3 generations. AT the BEGINNING of May, this species probably does not fly anywhere in the middle lane.

As I understand it, we are talking about Aricia agestis. In the middle band of years only from the MIDDLE (south of the band - Lipetsk region) or the END (middle of the band - Tula - Kaluga - Moscow) of May to September (at least, because in the warm days of October I was not in Lipetsk, and in Kaluga and Tula it is no longer there after the Indian summer), in 3 generations. IN EARLY May, this species probably does not fly anywhere in the middle zone.

Thanks for the information. Now I'll add it to the description.

Vasily entered the information as a personal message, and I added it to the formal attributes. That's about how it should work (since it would be better if the author of the information himself entered the data so that his signature stood, well, that's okay:--)
ZY. And May-August-it was about Germany.

This post was edited by Asar - 10/22/2013 11: 44

I added September to the formal attributes.

Why "September" and not "December"?

Why "September" and not "December"?

Vladimir, here is the form: http://lepidoptera.ru/aspecies/8425 Please, if you are logged in-enter the necessary information than here to torment the keyboard. Well, I don't understand, by God

Why "September" and not "December"?

Vladimir, I explained the principle of operation above. A new value for a formal attribute on the site (for example, "December") cannot appear without first entering text information with the source (what is shown in the "Expanded information with sources" section). That is, first a certain site user enters information with the source, saying that the type occurs in December in such and such a place parts of the area, the data source is such and such, and then it can already be sent by the admin/moderator to the formal ones.
About September infa on the site is entered. But not about December. Any registered user can enter information about December, including you. And after that, it can already be sent by the admin/moder to the formal attributes that can be used to search for the view and which are shown in the header of the view description page.

This post was edited by Asar - 22.10.2013 21: 59

A new value for a formal attribute on the site (for example, "December") cannot appear without first entering text information with the source.

And if this conclusion is formed as a result of the hard work of one's own mind?
PS: I'm not talking about myself of course, but for example the same Vladimir, and there are still people... they may well draw similar conclusions...

This post was edited by barry - 10/22/2013 22: 56

And if this conclusion is formed as a result of the hard work of one's own mind?
PS: I'm not talking about myself of course, but for example the same Vladimir, and there are still people... they may well draw similar conclusions...

In this case, instead of specifying the source, the user puts a special checkbox "Private message", and everything is normal.
For example, on a tip from the Lavr, Vasily put information about the time of summer with the note "Personal message", although ideally, of course, it is more correct if the Lavr himself puts a personal message and his signature goes to this information, so as not to make a queue who told whom what. But this is ideal, and in the meantime, filling in with one extra link is better than not filling in at all.

This post was edited by Asar - 10/22/2013 23: 13

It is best to link to publications, if any. In the case of agestis, according to my data, this is primarily the case (Bolshakov, 2002; Bolshakov et al., 2012). But it says that the 3rd generation (as of 2011) was mainly noted in the forest-steppe of the Tula region, but in the Kaluga region it was noted only in 2012, and this has not yet been published. In general, 2 generations of this species are already in the forest zone, except for some of the most heated areas on extensive sands. Although it doesn't go very far into the forest area.

If a person saw the information in the publication, uploaded the data to the site and put the source of this very publication-everything is correct and logical.
If the person did not see the publication in his eyes, but heard information from a person worthy of trust in his opinion, or obtained information with his own unpublished research — then a personal message.

I. e. in this particular case:
Adds Lavr Bolshakov-source publication.
Added by Vasily Feoktistov-source private message.

Big update of the "Community" section. Previously, it was convenient to discuss views and photos, but general topics were not very common. Now it will be very. The link is still the same: http://lepidoptera.ru/community

I invite you to participate in the discussion of the topic Lepidoptera.ru and money, which addresses issues of finance and / or enthusiasm of users who fill the site with content and control this very content. The subject is located at http://lepidoptera.ru/community/24182.

In the topic Automatic identification of butterflies by photo the issue of primary sampling of photos is raised in order to teach the program to determine the similarity coefficient between different butterflies taken from the same angle. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please let them know.
P. S. The photo will be used together with other attributes when selecting in the catalog of species on the site.
P.S.S. It is clear that the thing is fantastic, but it can turn out quite interesting and useful. With all reservations. Obvious ones.

Since even experienced users of the site sometimes do not use all its features, just in case I repeat:
In the Catalog section, you can select species based on different characteristics (indicating several features in a row), including the full distribution from the Sineva Catalog and from the Fauna of Europe. In other words, if you need all the Nymphalinae, for example, in the Kaliningrad region (or France), then you can get the corresponding selection in two clicks. The same applies to other taxa.
You can make selections here: http://lepidoptera.ru/catalog.

This post was edited by Asar - 09/22/2014 13: 48

Since even experienced users of the site sometimes do not use all its features, just in case I repeat:
In the Catalog section, you can select species based on different characteristics (indicating several features in a row), including the full distribution from the Sineva Catalog and from the Fauna of Europea.

It is designed, of course, very well, but unfortunately it is not possible to use it. Why? Because for many even banal types, information is not entered/incorrectly entered.
Suppose I caught the apple moth Cydia pomonella. I don't know it, and I want to identify it. I drive in: family Tortricidae, country of Ukraine. I click. Types displayed: 66. Cydia pomonella is absent among them.
Do you understand my feelings? So what do I do next? That's right, I'll go to lepiforum.de and I will search there. Not so convenient, but reliable.

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/10841 → Logging in → "Adding information about the view" → "Distribution". We add the necessary information. If the data source is listed on the page http://lepidoptera.ru/references, we register a new source and make sure to specify it when adding data. Then the moderator formalizes it. As a result, Cydia pomonella will be shown in the corresponding selection.
It is clear that it would be good if everything was already laid out before us. But since it is not laid out, and all the possibilities for this are available, then.

C. pomonella I took just as an example, of course, and so everyone knows it. There are many examples of this, and that's the problem.
As I understand it, the solution is proposed as follows: independently find the desired checklist in the literature and drive it to the site. Well, I don't really mind, maybe I'll try it if I have time...

There are two main ways to add information to your site:
— Users regularly load information manually, in relatively small portions. I.e., yes, they "drive in".
— From time to time, I make major updates, especially for relatively easy-to-formalize information (just like the Sineva catalog). Therefore, if someone has reference books that are suitable for this method of work, you can not enter everything with your hands, but first discuss it with me, perhaps you can do it in a less expensive/tedious way.
Right now we'll hang up more maps, there's a lot of information about the points should be added, also help bu.

You can up to date any of your records in nature there. I used to do like this http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/501098

The number of illustrated species in the catalog exceeded 5000. Such a nice thing.

We are starting to implement a new approach to creating a taxon system on the site and monitoring it. Now taxon groups are divided into two types:
1. Groups with curators. The system in these groups is managed by these same curators (and one group can have several curators, and one curator can have several groups).
2. Groups without curators. As long as the taxon is in a no-man's-land group, all users with elevated rights work together to manage the system for it.
Ideally — it should be a gradual translation of taxa from point 2 to point 1. Therefore, the site needs curators. For more information, see the topic on the site http://lepidoptera.ru/community/27790, there is also a list of currently elevated users in my message today.
If you feel like it, raise your hands.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them.
P.S. It seems that we will have to grow from Lepidoptera to Insecta. Therefore, if anyone has an interest in smoking other groups of insects (not butterflies), you can also pre-voice them.

This post was edited by Asar-05.01.2015 23: 04

There is also an idea to develop a system for encouraging curators and other active users of the site by providing discounts on naturaliste.ru, and not just once for special offers, but by special codes for the total mass of the assortment (somewhere more, somewhere less).
Do you think this will be an additional advantage or will it not affect anything?

I want to curate all the Hepialidae, as well as Noctuoidea, Pyraloidea, and Tortricoidea of Northern Asia.

Svyatoslav, I'll send the instructions to your email address.

Svyatoslav, I'll send the instructions to your email address.

prostestil. everything seems to be working normally. I just didn't find a place to edit, say, an existing distribution of the species (see Pharmacis carna).

Ugums, in the same place and answered.
P. S. Distribution is edited separately (information can be added on the same page as editing the view).

I looked at the site.
Absolutely in vain is given such a key as "colors". Open Colias palaeno-yellow and brown. Males are yellow, females occasionally too. Where is brown?
Black, dark gray, brown, after all. And where white is, more precisely, greenish-white (or even with a bluish tinge). Have you seen a female paleno?
For viscotti, for example, the colors are also given incorrectly. Not a word about the green color of the nominative subspecies.

Next, we look at Notodontidae.
I won't go too deep into taxonomy, because it's not all smooth and smooth as it is. However, there are more important disadvantages. There is no information about the photo other than its author. For example, we can see a photo of Mimopydna pallida (mistakenly listed on the site as Bireta and Besaia). The author of the photo is indicated-good! If you also specify the date and place , it would be great. Until recently, this species was known from Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, the only representative of the genus in Russia.
http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/22153

There is another equally interesting picture.
http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67653
The site says Dudusa synopla.
1. it's not her in the picture. This is rather Dudusa vethi. Yes, in southern Thailand and Malaysia, both mainland and Borneo, these two species fly together. They differ quite well, so that even a person who is not an expert, with careful consideration, will be able to determine from the book Holloway, Mothers of Borneo. Notodontidae or on the same site. There are characteristic signs.
2. This suggests the previous remark - where was it filmed?
3. Why on site D. synopla appears as a synonym for D. nobilis? Where does this information come from? Moreover, the page on D. nobilis does not contain such data. Yes, they, in fact, should not be.

Next: Euhampsonia serratifera. http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67682
Again without a label. I see her as E. roepkei

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/8326
This is about Furcula furcula. the page at the bottom really shows it. At the top, the title photo is FURCULA BIFIDA. Just, oh!

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67007
It is written that Ginshachia gemmifera. Where was it shot?
Now, I'm more and more certain that it was shot in Malaysia, just like Dudusa vethi. Here in the picture - Ginshachia bronacha

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67612
How was this butterfly determined, by what determinant? This is not a Phalera ora at all. This is more suitable for Phalera torpida or even Phalera banksii. Moreover, a photo of Phalera ora in nature can only be taken in the mountains of Southwestern China, and even there-not everywhere .

Here, a cursory review revealed such things. I didn't look at the American ones on principle, and there are very few relatively adequate sources for them right now.

Thank you for your understanding, I hope no offense.
If necessary, add photos to the Notodontidae theme in images. We'll define it together.

I looked at the site.

Next, we look at Notodontidae.
I won't go too deep into taxonomy, because it's not all smooth and smooth as it is. However, there are more important disadvantages. There is no information about the photo other than its author. For example, we can see a photo of Mimopydna pallida (mistakenly listed on the site as Bireta and Besaia). The author of the photo is indicated-good! If you also specify the date and place , it would be great. Until recently, this species was known from Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, the only representative of the genus in Russia.
http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/22153

There is another equally interesting picture.
http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67653
The site says Dudusa synopla.
1. it's not her in the picture. This is rather Dudusa vethi. Yes, in southern Thailand and Malaysia, both mainland and Borneo, these two species fly together. They differ quite well, so that even a person who is not an expert, with careful consideration, will be able to determine from the book Holloway, Mothers of Borneo. Notodontidae or on the same site. There are characteristic signs.
2. This suggests the previous remark - where was it filmed?
3. Why on site D. synopla appears as a synonym for D. nobilis? Where does this information come from? Moreover, the page on D. nobilis does not contain such data. Yes, they, in fact, should not be.

Next: Euhampsonia serratifera. http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67682
Again without a label. I see her as E. roepkei

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/8326
This is about Furcula furcula. the page at the bottom really shows it. At the top, the title photo is FURCULA BIFIDA. Just, oh!

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67007
It is written that Ginshachia gemmifera. Where was it shot?
Now, I'm more and more certain that it was shot in Malaysia, just like Dudusa vethi. Here in the picture - Ginshachia bronacha

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67612
How was this butterfly determined, by what determinant? This is not a Phalera ora at all. This is more suitable for Phalera torpida or even Phalera banksii. Moreover, a photo of Phalera ora in nature can only be taken in the mountains of Southwestern China, and even there-not everywhere .
Thank you for your understanding, I hope no offense.
If necessary, add photos to the Notodontidae theme in images. We'll define it together.

Pavel, thank you so much for your attention to the site, but when viewing it, the inability to use the site crept in. All the links given relate to view pages, not photos. In order to get to the photo, you need to click on the button in the upper-right corner of the page. and then we go to the photo page, where all data on the place of photographing, and discussions by definition are shown. I do not want to transfer by type now please repeat the definition already on the pages of photos, so as not to delay the process I reset direct links to the pages of photos, if necessary, by clicking on the photo you can increase it
Mimopydna pallida - http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/27586
Dudusa synopla http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/15083
Euhampsonia serratifera http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/32954
Furcula bifida http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/15866
Ginshachia gemmifera 2014-05-24, Gunung Alab mnt., Sabah, Borneo altitude 1900 m n. o.m. http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/30079
Phalera ora. http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/23595
I hope for help in determining

I'll add Alexander.

I looked at the site.
Absolutely in vain is given such a key as "colors". Open Colias palaeno-yellow and brown. Males are yellow, females occasionally too. Where is brown?

The "color" attribute is a very useful thing for non-specialists, so that you can make selections of types based on these very colors. The site needs it, but:
1. You need to adjust its values, because it can be different even in the most simplified version for the underside and top of the wings, as well as for the main background of the wing and noticeable objects on it (spots, bandages). Therefore, there should be not just "color", but "top color", "color of the underparts", etc. A compromise between fullness (the color of the underparts of the fore wing of a female of the spring form of such a subspecies) and the convenience of filling and selection (fewer options — more convenient) is discussed.
2. You need to enter it for a larger number than now.
Accordingly, criticism of it in its current form is fully justified. Although I have accumulated not 1, not 2 and not 5 thank-you reviews that it exists, even if in such a stripped-down and sometimes incorrect form (all of them, of course, are not from specialists :--).

Next, we look at Notodontidae.
I won't go too deep into taxonomy, because it's not all smooth and smooth as it is. However, there are more important disadvantages. There is no information about the photo other than its author. For example, we can see a photo of Mimopydna pallida (mistakenly listed on the site as Bireta and Besaia). The author of the photo is indicated-good! If you also specify the date and place , it would be great.

:--) I will try to describe in more detail about the principles of working with the site below in a new comment (the question arises regularly, especially for those who are used to working with books and with book-like sites).
The view page doesn't have the location and time of shooting, because the location and time of shooting are properties of the photo, not the view. And the author of the photo appears there as the author of the illustration to the view. Therefore, the maximum snapshot properties will be on the snapshot page, and the maximum view properties will be on the view page. And you need to discuss/comment on the view page exactly the view (and the photo is only a property of the view called "illustration number 1", and all comments on the photo will be on the photos page.

3. Why on site D. synopla appears as a synonym for D. nobilis? Where does this information come from? Moreover, the page on D. nobilis does not contain such data. Yes, they, in fact, should not be.

Initially, there was an indication misidentified/misapplied in the database, but I ignored it, and the synonym was added as valid. Now corrected, synonym removed, thanks for the tip. I hope that with the advent of new curators, such errors will be corrected with good speed.

http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/67612
How was this butterfly determined, by what determinant? This is not a Phalera ora at all.

The photo properties are marked "inaccurate detection". If the site doesn't have well-defined images, certain images may be used as illustrations that are inaccurate (i.e. with doubts). Now the photos have been sent to undefined locations, and they are no longer used to illustrate Ph. ora. Thanks for the tip-off.

Thank you for your understanding, I hope no offense.

Thank you for your tips and comments.

This post was edited by Asar - 12.01.2015 22: 28

Pavel, thank you so much for your attention to the site, but when viewing it, the inability to use the site crept in. All the links given relate to view pages, not photos. In order to get to the photo, you need to click on the button in the upper-right corner of the page. and then we go to the photo page, where all data on the place of photographing, and discussions by definition are shown. I do not want to transfer by type now please repeat the definition already on the pages of photos, so as not to delay the process I reset direct links to the pages of photos, if necessary, by clicking on the photo you can increase it
Mimopydna pallida - http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/27586
Dudusa synopla http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/15083
Euhampsonia serratifera http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/32954
Furcula bifida http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/15866
Ginshachia gemmifera 2014-05-24, Gunung Alab mnt., Sabah, Borneo altitude 1900 m n. o.m. http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/30079
Phalera ora. http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/23595
I hope for help in determining

1. Excellent data on Mimopydna pallida!!!
Now there is no doubt that this "bambuchnitsa" is widespread quite widely in the mainland of the Far East. Now it's a small matter-to collect the female (and in the photo-a female, like) and get the prey. It is clear that he will eat cane or some other cereal. Data on preimaginal phases from our territory would be invaluable!
2. Dudusa distincta
without a doubt
3. Yes, it is definitely Euhampsonia serratifera
4. Please fix it on bifida! Please do.
It would be nice not to deal with ginsakhs in Duduz and Euchampsonia, but 3 of our furkuli are from the Non-Black Earth region! Well, you should know that.
5. Ginshachia bronacha no doubt
6. This is definitely and unmistakably Phalera torpida, a common and widespread "hole"in mainland Southeast Asia

Happy to help