Insecta.pro Community
Pages: 1 ...135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143... 145
Eugene, online infa Troides taken it with funeta.
In the same 9000 in the area of Google results Ornithoptera priamus and in the 6000 Troides priamus. Outside, of course, stupid, but still in the original version with Troides for this kind does not pull ... or what?
Updated.
Terrific.
Moved.
Moved.
Any suggestions more?
Ok, corrected.
Alexander did not quite understand what links? To add. information?
Alexandr, thanks for identifying. Photo moved.
Continue talking of subspecies: now one can get subspecies info only at species description pages, reading descriptions or comments (as Dmitry and Alexandr have been adding such comments). But one can't tell looking at the image if there is any subspecies info or not (if subspecies was specified at all). I think, that now there is no need in individual subspecies pages. Nevertheless, we should ...
Last Dmitry Podjogin comment moved to the species description page.
Caucasus removed.
Updated.
Ok then, thanks, updated.
Dmitry, this is the same: maybe I have a photo with its underside, but of another butterfly. Will specify later.
Ok, moved to activated species. Anyway, that's pretty weird why some species with info given are not activated...
Moved to M. dryas.
Moved.
As far as I can remember, this was shot in some museum abroad where it was put in a glass box. So no underside and maybe label too. I will check it later, look through original pics, maybe find something more eloquent.
Moved.
As for classifying, yes, there is to be, subspecies will be classified somehow. Now we've got lack of its info and sometimes also of photos. For instance, this very nephelus is depicted there only once (ok, there is one more photo to publish). More info = better and properer subspecies classifying. Any ideas? Let's have a brainstorm, but please, in another topic.
Back to "identified successfully".
Subspecies had been already removed. Signed "male".
Meh, my vote plus.
Cool photo even though not ideal from a technical point of view.
Yes, folks are so active these days about identifying, so as there are not so many "undetermined" left to identify, even with January extras...
Moved to "uncertain".
#3000 moved to "uncertain".
Goes to ferula, "uncertain".
Species added, photo moved.
Glitch fixed.
New species and genus added, photo moved. Also, my congrats to having such a gem ;--)
Photo moved.
New species added, photo moved.
Subspecies removed. As far as I can guess, Dmitry just compared two subspecies talking about cuspidatus, not commented this photo.
Moved to G. nomius.
Goes to "uncertain" then, waiting for new opinions.
Moved to B. crassus. What's better and more adequate, female or imago?
Moved. Male or imago?
Moved to M. berania.
If I specify this as Papilio nephelus chaon, no drama? Cause as I can see, it's named such in nearly every reference. Or that's surely out of date?
Sirs, let's sum it up: identifying is successful and subspecies info not, should last be removed then?
Moved.
Moved.
Evgeny, what about http://lepidoptera.pro/gallery/3000/? Looks similar to.
Meh, species name updated.
Comment goes to the species description page.
Moved to Phyllophila obliterata.
Photo goes to Eucarta virgo.
News
- 17.11.2024: Импортированы и переведны последние свежие сообщения с форума. Обновлена страница «О сайте».
- 11.11.2024: The Community/Forum section has become more convenient
- 11.11.2024: Improved scaling of images in the Forum/Community
New photos (24.11.2024)
Fresh from the community
- 12:51, P. Khramov: Да, в галерею можно смело дублирова...
- 12:48, P. Khramov: Виктор, спасибо, зафиксировал, сдел...
Popular insects
Recommended blog topics
- Entomological seminar in Moscow on November 13
- Meantime in Japan
- Entomologist? What kind of job is it?
- Give moth a name! until June 1st in the Forest & Bird competition
