Pages: 1 ...18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26... 144
Vladimir Zryanin, our Formicidae curator, will be online early October and he'll able to help with identification then.
Shamil, I'll indicate you as identification author since Victor is not registered website user, right?
I see a lot of things are attached to this marker, but the point itself isn't there. I suggest you do this: Irek, put a new marker, don't link anything to it, then give me the number, and I will replace the binding of all photos that were linked to the same marker as this one (photo 65191) with the binding to the new marker. I think this is the fastest option.
Brr. I don't understand. There is a link to the point, but the point itself is not present. Irek, how did this happen?..
Vasily, if I understood correctly, the question was why to upload photo # 42 for a view that has a lot of images on the site, including from similar geo points. P. S. In general, this is a question for the second gallery, as already discussed...
With the search it is clear, but with the opening of individual pages-mark the time and came a couple of links (not counting the main one) pliz. The browser doesn't matter here.
Perhaps Elena didn't mean "butterfly or moth?", but "butterfly or moth?" (i.e. butterfly or moth). In this case, it is a moth.
People, if anyone has information on this view from the agricultural point of view, send it to a friend...
At the end of July, there will probably be a reason to return to the issues of curation in general. Then, I think, we will solve the problem in one way or another.
This is the Zagreb Museum, they might have a somewhat less responsible attitude for the identification and confirmation...
I don't know if it's related or not, but now it seems that there is a glitch with auto-substitutions. People, do wildcards work for you?
I mean, with the copyright? You yourself transferred it first to Heteroptera, then to Erthesina. Or had she already been somewhere else?