E-mail: Password: Create an Account Recover password

Authors Contacts Get involved Русская версия

show

Insecta.pro Community

Pages: 1 ...18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26... 33

23.10.2013 11:02, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #16946

need to move in Cucullia lucifuga (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775) (but so far ill-defined). Do not leave it as Lacanobia suasa, in the end ???

23.10.2013 10:55, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24123

Irina right! This is not the Arion is - Phengaris arionides.

23.10.2013 10:55, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24123

This species is identified correctly.

23.10.2013 10:55, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24124

Irina right! This is not the Arion is - Phengaris arionides.

23.10.2013 10:54, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24124

This species is identified correctly.

23.10.2013 10:41, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #16946

No, not exactly umbratica. In this instance there is no characteristic umbratica yellowish area in the middle of the front wing: http://insectamo.ru/hete/98-hete/noctuidae/1311-cucullia-umbratica. It Cucullia lucifuga (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775)! But to endure in this case it is necessary in certain inaccurate.Why is imprecisely defined? Yes, simply because we do not know the date of capture, ...

23.10.2013 10:39, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #16946

No, not exactly umbratica. In this instance there is no characteristic umbratica yellowish area in the middle of the front wing: http://insectamo.ru/hete/98-hete/noctuidae/1311-cucullia-umbratica. It Cucullia lucifuga (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775)! But to endure in this case it is necessary in certain inaccurate.Why is imprecisely defined? Yes, simply because we do not know the date of capture, ...

23.10.2013 2:33, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #17488

Type defined incorrectly! It is not Cerura vinula! This is something of Furcula sp. Perhaps, Furcula bifida (Barhm, 1787) (in the ill-defined)

23.10.2013 2:33, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #17489

Type defined incorrectly! It is not Cerura vinula! This is something of Furcula sp. Perhaps, Furcula bifida (Barhm, 1787) (in the ill-defined)

23.10.2013 2:23, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #16781

If this photo is made in the Kirov region (as well as many other photos of the author), it is - Conisania luteago, no options.

23.10.2013 2:17, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #16946

Cucullia lucifuga (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775)

23.10.2013 1:27, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3511

Argynnis paphia (Linnaeus, 1758)

23.10.2013 1:18, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3156

Basil and label data, you can find this instance? Whether in the far east of catching this instance?

23.10.2013 1:18, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3157

Basil and label data, you can find this instance? Whether in the far east of catching this instance?

23.10.2013 1:11, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3074

This is definitely not Diarsia florida! This is Chersotis cuprea!!! http://insectamo.ru/hete/98-hete/noctuidae/1490-chersotis-cuprea Folks, how come?

23.10.2013 0:53, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #21986

This butterfly has a long history as a definite. Why has not yet been transferred ???

22.10.2013 23:45, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24115

Epirrita autumnata (Borkhausen, 1794)

22.10.2013 23:44, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24114

Epirrita autumnata (Borkhausen, 1794)

22.10.2013 23:36, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #4392

Acronicta menyanthidis (Esper, 1789)

22.10.2013 22:42, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24112

Macroglossum stellatarum, (Linnaeus, 1758)

22.10.2013 22:41, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24106

No, Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758).

22.10.2013 21:18, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24100

This species is identified correctly.

22.10.2013 21:17, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24099

This species is identified correctly.

22.10.2013 21:10, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24097

Well, if the date of the capture of the fourth of October the Erannis defoliaria without question.

22.10.2013 21:10, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24096

Well, if the date of the capture of the fourth of October the Erannis defoliaria without question.

22.10.2013 20:16, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24097

Agriopis marginaria (see. "Time and place / fishing")

22.10.2013 20:14, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #24096

Basil, pay attention to "Time and place / fishing." There in black and white the date: April 10, 2010 While Erannis defoliaria - autumnal view, its the summer end of September - October. So the author of the photo rights, Agriopis marginaria it.

21.10.2013 22:40, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #13114

I admit my mistake. Photos need to be moved to Ancylis uncella.

21.10.2013 19:24, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3731

I admit my mistake. Photos need to be moved to Spaelotis ravida.

21.10.2013 19:23, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #21941

I admit my mistake. Photos need to be moved to Hypenodes humidalis.

21.10.2013 19:21, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #21874

Alexandr, sorry, but here can't agree with you. Who said this moth has dark scales on the forewing underside? This might be just poor light (as a result the moth got darkened), so it seems the forewing underside has darken scales whilst the species has actually no any. In the end, the wing shape ideally fits Pterophorus pentadactyla, any other species doesn't go because of the different wing ...

21.10.2013 19:15, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #14086

I admit my mistake. Photos should be returned back to undefined.

21.10.2013 19:14, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #14021

I admit my mistake. Photos should be returned back to undefined.

21.10.2013 19:12, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #13553

I admit my mistake. Photos should be returned back to undefined.

21.10.2013 19:11, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #13551

I admit my mistake. Photos should be returned back to undefined.

21.10.2013 19:10, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #13131

I admit my mistake. Photos should be returned back to undefined.

21.10.2013 19:09, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #13114

I admit my mistake. Photos need to be moved to Ancylis uncella.

21.10.2013 15:44, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #18229

Photos need to be moved to fake revelers (Mimas tiliae).

21.10.2013 15:43, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #18229

People! I want to admit his mistake. I do not know what I was thinking when he defines this as a caterpillar Smerinthus ocellata, but now, after quite a long period of time (nine months have passed since my initial determination) I look back at this photograph and horrified.In fact, there is shown a caterpillar not mottled hawk (Smerinthus ocellata), and lime (Mimas tiliae). I apologize for the ...

21.10.2013 12:33, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #5309

Guys, why not moving? Or you lost confidence in me? Sure I may easily err in microlepidoptera and promise will never try to identify them again, but it's not the case with hawkmoth larvae. In summer I get lots of hawkmoths of larvae including Smerinthus ocellatа and Laothoe populi so may responsibly say this is not Laothoe populi larva but one of Smerinthus ocellatа. Here everything's clear, no ...

21.10.2013 12:31, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #5306

Guys, why not moving? Or you lost confidence in me? Sure I may easily err in microlepidoptera and promise will never try to identify them again, but it's not the case with hawkmoth larvae. In summer I get lots of hawkmoths of larvae including Smerinthus ocellatа and Laothoe populi so may responsibly say this is not Laothoe populi larva but one of Smerinthus ocellatа. Here everything's clear, no ...

21.10.2013 12:30, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #5305

Guys, why not moving? Or you lost confidence in me? Sure I may easily err in microlepidoptera and promise will never try to identify them again, but it's not the case with hawkmoth larvae. In summer I get lots of hawkmoths of larvae including Smerinthus ocellatа and Laothoe populi so may responsibly say this is not Laothoe populi larva but one of Smerinthus ocellatа. Here everything's clear, no ...

20.10.2013 21:23, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #5306

If this photo shows the same track as in the picture # 5309 and # 5305, it is also Smerinthus ocellata (Linnaeus, 1758)!

20.10.2013 21:21, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #5305

This caterpillar Smerinthus ocellata (Linnaeus, 1758)!

20.10.2013 21:21, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #5309

This caterpillar Smerinthus ocellata (Linnaeus, 1758)!

19.10.2013 13:16, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3982

This species is identified correctly.

19.10.2013 13:04, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #3731

Euxoa nigricans (Linnaeus, 1761)

18.10.2013 22:49, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #21941

Schrankia costaestrigalis (Stephens, 1834) (in the ill-defined)

18.10.2013 22:44, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #21874

Pterophorus pentadactyla (Linnaeus, 1758) (in the ill-defined)

18.10.2013 22:41, Sergei Kotov: comment on photo #21734

Jodis lactearia (Linnaeus, 1758)

Next page

Insecta.pro: international entomological community. Terms of use and publishing policy.

Project editor in chief and administrator: Peter Khramov.

Curators: Konstantin Efetov, Vasiliy Feoktistov, Svyatoslav Knyazev, Evgeny Komarov, Stan Korb, Alexander Zhakov.

Moderators: Vasiliy Feoktistov, Evgeny Komarov, Dmitriy Pozhogin, Alexandr Zhakov.

Thanks to all authors, who publish materials on the website.

© Insects catalog Insecta.pro, 2007—2024.

Species catalog enables to sort by characteristics such as expansion, flight time, etc..

Photos of representatives Insecta.

Detailed insects classification with references list.

Few themed publications and a living blog.