Insecta.pro Community
Pages: 1 ...16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24... 33
In this photo the same butterfly, as here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/23773, but in the expanded form.
In this photo the same butterfly, as here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/23773, but in the expanded form.
Yes you are right. The photo really Catocala elocata
Eurema simulatrix(in the ill-defined)
Araschnia levana
Polyommatus icarusin the ill-defined
Yponomeuta malinellus
Yponomeuta malinellus
Yponomeuta malinellus
Yponomeuta malinellus
Yponomeuta malinellus
Zygaena minos(in the ill-defined)
Zygaena minos(in the ill-defined)
Argynnis pandora
Oleg, and where the results of the definition, since it was carried out on photographs?
Sitochroa verticalis- a bad angle, but it seems that it is this kind.
This species is identified correctly.
This species is identified correctly.
This species is identified correctly.
Oh, no, not exactly Operophtera fagata. Epirrita autumnatait.
Oh, no, not exactly Operophtera fagata. Epirrita autumnatait.
Vasily, so it was finally moved? Just I saw Ivan Pristrem's page and there when you move your cursor over its picture, there is a sign appears "species is not identified". Thus I said. I should've checked the very species photo page if it had the ID. So I didn't, my pardon. Anyway here's some clear bug about this dyssynchrony between the identified species on its photo page and allegedly "not ...
The butterfly is very shabby, but it is clear that this Hypomecis sp. Although attrition instance, wavy outer sash can be seen, and on the basis of a butterfly is more consistent with H. roboraria. Result -Hypomecis roboraria(in the ill-defined)
Defined correctly, it can be accurate.
No Xanthorhoe spadicearia here does not even smell. Epirrhoe alternatait.
Why has not yet been moved? It is now four months has been determined. And do not blame in this case the employment moderators. First, for the past four months it could be vouchsafed and transfer, and secondly, the site has three moderator.
Lasiocampa quercus
Phragmatobia fuliginosa
Ethmia pusiella (source: http://www.lepiforum.de/lepiwiki.pl?Ethmia_Pusiella)
Thank you and on this one.
"Butterflies all Volgograd" - it is quite obvious in my opinion. Picture Exotics from this author there.
It is necessary to move.
It is necessary to move.
It is necessary to move.
It is necessary to move.
Clear. No questions.
I was already e-mailed Synev's book by Alexandr. Question closed. Now another bothers me. Moreover, looking at this, http://lepidoptera.pro/gallery/3535, he's not quite precise in IDs (which anyway doesn't derogate his worth). Hecatera dysodea isn't mentioned in Synev's book in Amur region. Which is still not a criterion, as it turns out. I wonder now if I was right this is Hecatera dysodea or ...
I was already e-mailed Synev's book by Alexandr. Question closed. Now another bothers me. Moreover, looking at this, http://lepidoptera.pro/gallery/3535, he's not quite precise in IDs (which anyway doesn't derogate his worth). Hecatera dysodea isn't mentioned in Synev's book in Amur region. Which is still not a criterion, as it turns out. I wonder now if I was right this is Hecatera dysodea or ...
Transfer is necessary, how long ago determined.
Ethmia pusiella(source: http://www.lepiforum.de/lepiwiki.pl?Ethmia_Pusiella)
"and perhaps there will be more time to cool spices and something will go from the category of race, in the category of view, without any cooking" - it does not happen. Either members of the group and all the experts are always determined only on the genitals or not. One of the two. There is no third.
Alexander, need your authoritative opinion:Hecatera dysodeait or not?
"I just did not understand. What is so amused by Sergei" - very much fretting error turned out in this case.
Alexander, first of all, I apologize for the excessive sharpness. "And now a very complex case" - but with these let us disagree. maxima and distinctive appearance is markedly different from other members of the genus Lygephila
Yeah, you really have fun here. Macdunnoughia confusait. For a long time so I do not laugh. Lots and heartily.
Type defined incorrectly. It is anything but not Aporia Crataegi.
I might be hardly blamed by Alexandr Zhakov, still say this is Lygephila maxima.
Petr, thanks for the hint. Will get it in use.
Clear. But this butterfly bicolorata quite unlike. Well, so be it. Let it remain uncertain. Maybe someone someday it will determine. Although unlikely ... I believe in it with difficulty.
CorydalisCnetodonta grisescens
News
- 31.08.2024: Первые итоги интеграции/переноса/дублирования Молбиола и Инсекты
- 25.08.2024: Further adaptation of the website for mobile devices
- 14.08.2024: Auto applying the properties "taxon", "author of identification", "precision of identification" to all photos in a group when one of the photos is changed
New photos (15.09.2024)
Fresh from the community
- 16:38, P. Khramov: Not identified → Doleschallia bisal...
- 16:38, P. Khramov: Not identified → Nymphalis canace /...
Popular insects
Recommended blog topics
- Meanwhile, at the "Reptilium"
- The petition in defense of biological nomenclature
- Interview with Alexander Zatakovoy, one of the wild Russian entomologists
- Butterflies and music: Chuck Royal & The Sharpsters, You're Like a Butterfly
