Conversion of wingspan to front wing length

May.
Wingspan approximately = breast width + 2*(wing length)* cos (angle between the sides of the wing adjacent to the breast)
But why ?

Some sources indicate the length of the wing. In others, the scope. Task: selection from the catalog by size (it is clear that the size varies, depending on geography, but still). For such a sample, you need to bring all dimensions to the length of the wing. That's why we need a formula.
But, since the breast width is not exactly known, it seems that the recalculation will be so approximate that the meaning will be somewhat lost...

May.
Wingspan approximately = breast width + 2*(wing length)* cos (angle between the sides of the wing adjacent to the breast)

Species with scalloped and rounded wings run the risk of not meeting this formula, as their wingspan is not measured between the apexes.

Asar!
This is CLEARLY not feasible. What is the use of a formula for which almost everything is unknown: the width of the breast, the angle between the front and rear edges of the wing. Where do you get all this stuff from? There is really no such data anywhere and there can't be, because no one has needed it yet. All that remains is to run around museums with a ruler and protractor yourself and measure thousands/tens of thousands of specimens of each species, including all taxa of a lower rank ( "...and this abyss swallowed him up"). Plus what okoem said, and what the formula doesn't take into account at all.

Isn't it easier to find ready-made and known data on the wingspan and (or) the length of the front wing? They probably exist (in both measurement variants) for ALL species known to science. It remains only to find relevant literary sources. But this, at least, is a realistic task.

If you couldn't find the right measurement option for a particular type, it's better to leave it as it is.

This post was edited by Aaata - 08/11/2009 04: 46

It was a joke.
Here, some of the butterflies are spread out so that the span is 1.5 times less than the nominal one. In this case, the wing length gives a little more information.

Asar, there is no such formula. There is such a thing as modification (individual) variability. Even butterflies of the same species caught in the same place will have slightly different wingspans with the same wing length (and if the specimens are given the same wing angle when spreading). This is due to the slightly different shape and width of the wings in different specimens. You can check it out for yourself and see for yourself. In general, it is better to use only the length of the front wing, it is more accepted in science and more reliable and informative.

This post was edited by Ekos - 13.08.2009 01: 13

In most literature, it is the span of the front wing that is indicated. For example, for Argynnis paphia, it averages 5.5-7 cm for well-straightened specimens when the rear edge of the front wing is placed strictly perpendicular to the body and the span is measured by the distance between the most protruding points of the wing, while the chest thickness is included in the span. P.S. Let's not reinvent the wheel if it has long been invented.

formulas in this case are rubbish.. We need an easy way to measure. Can be measured in span.. This is needed more to represent the headstock size. And the most objectable probably can be made the length of the wing - from the root to the top.

OK. I conclude that the correct option as the main one is the wing length, that when there is no data on the wing length, the span will also go, and that it is impossible to automatically translate the span into length with a sufficient degree of accuracy.
Thank you all!