Pages: 1 2
Oh thanks! The more interesting! I watched the photo on this page the determination, but for some reason decided that I C. pamphilus.
Re: Vladimir, and you are underdetermined be shipped in one package and individually. So I pack has never and is not loaded, load all the images one by one.
OK, I realized his mistake, but the name of the file to edit can not. And to kind of determined to molbiole Olearius, aka Evgeny Tsvetkov. I myself, too, at first thought to Scoparia ...
Peter, I'm not a big expert in Photoshop and use only a few sliders. But what happens to the image uploaded to the site, I do not know. Take a look at the same picture to other resources and compare: http://savepic.org/6632318.jpg
Strange that? In this case, the BB is not right. And, when shooting in RAW (NEF), the white balance is easy to rule in the proyavschike.
Re: Those who have questions about the spelling of Russian names of species - reported. Yeah, then another question: torfyannikovaya or torfyanikovaya yet? )
I'm not lazy, just missed somehow this moment. MEND. And in this case, and not a living, not a collector ...)
Can not be combined into one group number # 30539, # 30540, # 30541, # 30542, # 30543, # 30544, # 30545.
I think that view is defined incorrectly. Do not see the characteristic "horns" of the head, typical for the larvae of this species. In the photo is likely caterpillar Brenthis ino. Another very similar Brenthis daphne, but that sort of feeds on Rubus. Between these kinds of distinctions I do not know.
I think that view is defined incorrectly. Do not see the characteristic "horns" of the head, typical for the larvae of this species. Tavolga on which the caterpillar is an indirect confirmation of my version. In the photo is likely caterpillar Brenthis ino. Another very similar Brenthis daphne, but that sort of feeds on Rubus. Between these kinds of distinctions I do not know.