Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 52
There was a reason to doubt the accuracy of the identification. Please move to Archips dichotomus. Explanations here http://insecta.pro/ru/gallery/60346
Finally, in addition to the drawing and description, we managed to find good images of Archips dichotomusin the RDV Insect Identification Guide (vol.5, part 3, p. 136). The image of the female appeared on the Lepiforum http://www.lepiforum.de/lepiwiki.pl?Archips_Dichotoma, самца (паратип) – нашла здесь ...
Archips pulchra view comment (removed from database 12.10.2016 9:11): Duplicate view http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20649
Comment on Archips nigricaudana (deleted from database 12.10.2016 9:25): Duplicate of the view http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20641
Comment to Archips ingentana (deleted from database 12.10.2016 9:18): Duplicate of the view http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20639
Comment on Archips dichotoma (removed from database 12.10.2016 9:17): Duplicate of the species http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20636
Comment on Archips capsigerana (removed from database on 12.10.2016 9:16): Double view http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20634
Comment on Archips breviplicana (removed from database 12.10.2016 9:15): Duplicate of the type http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20633
Comment to Archips subrufana (deleted from database on 12.10.2016 9:13): Double view http://insecta.pro/ru/taxonomy/20645
This is not alwina, I uploaded alwina's underside (#60179) You can see alwina here http://catocala.narod.ru/nym10.html. And at the photo Neptis philyroides
Eugene, until I started to illustrate the view, because I found the same photo in the form of Eucarta arctides http://insecta.pro/ru/gallery/59716. What is correct? Apparently, here's where the definition of A.Matova? I reviewed all my own and your productions this year. To be honest, I do not have complete clarity on the 3 seaside similar species arctides, arcta and fasciata and do not really ...
Subspecies Paratalanta cultralis amurensis (Romanoff, 1887) in the Far East of the Russian Federation. This definition was confirmed by V. A. Kirpichnikov
On Japanese sites, a species in the genus Cossus http://www.jpmoth.org/Cossidae/Cossinae/Cossus_insularis.html, in the DVR Insect Identifier (vol. 5, part 2), the species is in the genus Holcocerus.
Cossus orientalis Gaede, 1929 In R. V. Yakovlev's article " Systematic revision of the odorous woodworm-COSSUS COSSUS (LINNAEUS, 1758) (LEPIDOPTERA, COSSIDAE) "(AZZH I (1), 2009. 57-71) taxon orientalis has been assigned a specific status and a detailed description and differential diagnosis of the species Cossus orientalis Gaede, 1929 , which differs well from Cossus cossus, is given. A new ...
Join us!) Thank you, Sasha! And, you won't believe it, one of the first assumptions when I started looking for tufts was furcula) But I asked Yura about the size, the answer was - "1 cm, well, no more than 1.5 in length" ... and I somehow left this thought, switched, clinging to the size, to the second option-Micromelalopha. Furcula-something like more, even the smallest of them - ...
Megalycinia strictaria? But we also have Synopsia strictaria on our site And in the Catalog Sineva (book) the species is given in the genus Synopsia. But apparently Megalycinia strictaria is valid http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=445849
I agree, of course, that the issue is not closed. I fully admit that I could have made a mistake in the assumption (I also had a lot of doubts), but it is better to express it for discussion, since it has appeared)
According to V. A. Kirpichnikova, a rather rare firefly from the pantropical genus Bradina Lederer, 1863, found in Primorye and in the south of the Khabarovsk Territory. On the territory of the Far Eastern Federal District, it is represented by the subspecies Bradina atopalis krigeri, Streltzov et Dubatolov, which is described in detail in the article by A. N. Streltsov and V. V. Dubatolov "The ...
A butterfly, unfortunately. very shabby. and yet I dare to make one bold assumption) And it can't be one of the three seaside crested babies from the genus Micromelalopha? Yura said. that it's very small. The remnants of bandages at the edge of the wing in shape seem to me similar to Micromelalopha troglodyta, it has a wingspan of 24-26 mm, and according to data from jpmoth, even less - 15-20 ...
Evgeny, over the past 2 years there are 5 photos of different Timandra that I haven't posted yet, because I wouldn’t risk defining anything other than recompta for 40th Russia region at the moment.May be you are right and this is dichela in this photo. But not because of the shape of the sling. Last fall, I was trying to figure it out. I copied more than 25 images of Timandra from the network ...
http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=466507 I shot similar butterflies in Anisimovka last year (#46643 and #46644). During the year, I reviewed the possible options and still dared to put them in inaccurate ones. If there are no objections, maybe last year's ones can be transferred to inaccurate abraxina?
Eugene, there is no need to count:) Select Gallery - further in the selection parameters choose Noctuidae, photographer and select Primorsky Krai as Location. Here are the results and the photos. Very convenient:)
Apparently, so. I looked at all the pictures, most similar to the Italian one with a very wavy post-basal sling and the Swiss ones (1 and 3-4) with lepiforum.de, only much more contrasting.
No, Sash, I don't know anything like that. What confused you? I have no doubts about it, it seems that everything is within the limits of variability. There were a lot of them, all about the same, and they don't differ much from last year's ones. Many have wider dark bandages than in most images. There are other camera angles (but not this ex), I can show you. I did not put it, the photos are not ...
Of course, we will wait for the opinions of Evgeny and Alexey. Let me explain what particularly confused me - this white spot. According to the book by Kononenko the differential diagnosis of these species (p. 179): E. mixta differs from its congeners in duller wing color with more expressed mossy greenish tint, absence of white reniform stigma, and less expressed or not expressed yellow patch ...
Usually, when illustrating one of the species and the genus is automatically illustrated, but for some reason this did not happen( Now manually). I only receive information about non-illustrated types in the personal account)
Evgeniy, could there be any confusion when taking two pictures? I dealt with my own from Anisimovka, looked at Kononenko (and descriptions too), and here, I think, subpulchra. Sasha, I ask you again - look at the book these 2 types (pl. 22), please, I don't seem to be mistaken, but I can't check on other sites yet.