Pages: 1 ...76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84... 145
So if this is still held on, what's with other photos of Diaphania nitidalis, if they're actually identified right?
Moved to H. salicella. The photo was uploaded 2 years ago, so now we can barely get to know if he actually had some trouble with upload back then.
Vitaly, agree? Andrey, the same is on the neighbour photo? To all, if these two species are synonyms?
Sergey, you often add photos with the IDs, which yet are not linked with the catalogue species. So if you have some troubles with a field "Species name" on upload or with editing data in your personal account on the website, please e-mail me or create a new post in the Community, and we'll clear the things up.
The author identified it right, just didn't manage to link the photo with the ID properly. Just fixed it. Vitaly, such mislinking happens due to you incorrectly write the species name like c album without hyphen whilst the catalogue name actually has hyphen (c-album).
Oh yes, commented about mistyping and didn't move the photo. I'll do it right now, thanks for the nudge.
Would like to say it again, it's never bad to confirm the ID. It's not about that the one who identified would have no doubt, but lest other people have any, since those might know nothing of the species, if it's common or not, neither know anything at all.
To Vitaly and all photographers as well, please let's not add dry specimens two things at once in one photo. This way (easier to compare) is good for guides and home archives, while the photos on the website can be used and selected in many ways, and it's just two clicks for to have two separate pics before the eyes, instead such double photos make the search quite more complicated. So if any of ...