Insecta.pro Community
Pages: 1 ...145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153... 169
This species is identified correctly.
Lycaena dispar.
Pleuroptya ruralis.
Spilosoma lutea.
Euclidia glyphica.
This species is identified correctly.
Cyclosia papilionaris, species identified correctly.
No need to add anything, this is Problepsis apollinaria.
Dmitry, if you checked this website www.thaibugs.com, it has the same moth, but the ID is doubtful, www.jpmoth.org has different moth as well as well as the majority of other websites.
Can't agree, I'm for Lomaspilis opis.
This is not Orthosia cerasi but Orthosia populeti.
This is not Orthosia cerasi but Orthosia populeti.
Yuri, say, their opinions have not changed, and specify. from "not argiolus" to "ladonides, inaccurate determination." The discussion considered all possible options. I do not understand on what basis you put all of our discussion into question? Do you want a 100% guarantee determination, it just can not be (in this version).Special literature, as you write, for an amateur difficult, and popular, ...
Right!
Alas, Yuri, I have repeatedly expressed my opinion and a lot written on this page. three participant discussion came to one the most probable opinion, one does not come to what is not, but against it. You are right on this particular photo can be no doubt, therefore, must make a determination (a type defined inaccurate).With great respect to your opinion. Zhakov
Yes, like enough.
Peter and the transferred. :)
Having other ladonides surely identified this butterfly evokes serious doubt.
Irina fully sogdasen that forum will save a record in terms of comment. :))
Hände hoch :)))
Yury, don't despair. Where there's a will, there's a way. :)
Totally agree with Vasily. If you feel something and doubt, don't say definitely, but use instead "looks like...", "could be..." or question mark at least. This can help others in identifying whilst your right of the first identifier is kept anyway. Otherwise the moderator may inadvertently move such wrong ID. Everyone can be wrong. :)
I suggest moving this to "uncertain". I might be saying an obvious truth, but Amphipoea species can't be identified by photo. I assume it's possible to get a sure ID when having a collected specimen (and moth size appears evident to compare to others) with a detailed and certain biotope, and a deep knowledge of local species. Last winter I was asked by a colleague to recheck already identified ...
Irina, may I ask you how do you identify Amphipoea?
Callabraxas ludovicaria is name here. :)
Cydia pomonella.
Chrysoteuchia culmella.
Whilst Vladimir Stepanovich is highly competent, the moth condition makes it quite hard to suppose anything. Sinev's Catalogue and Far East identification guides vol. 5, part 4, don't mention this species in Russia, there is grisescens as well. The larva looks very likely to be Lymantria dispar. Didn't manage to find larvae of the two species mentioned above. Don't insist on anything, just ...
The ID is correct. There are three more species of this genus in Primorye, though quite different.
Yuri, see p. 143, it stated that in the Far East this species subspecies levetti, and in Japan it is replaced by a close subspecies ladonides. On the same page, two species of this genus sachalinensis and filipjevi. The determinants of insect LW T5 ch5 on str.375 i376, we read: C. ladonides de l'Orza (sachalinensis Esaki) Hub., Cupid., Prim., Peninsula of Korea, SW China ....... C. l. ...
Wasn't moved to "identified successfully".
Yury, there is no need to believe me, I actually have a very poor knowledge of lepidoptera of Russian Far East and Primorye particularly, this region is out of my interest. Also I'm not familiar with Y. A. Chistyakov's publication, which issue year you never mentioned. I just wanted to lay out the situation. I referred to the publication that summarized the research of all Russian lepidopterists, ...
Both Evgeny already said it right, now I'll try to explain it more thoroughly. Also this is a clear example of two burning questions about common names and locations. So the answer to Yury. 1. There is no Celastrina argiolus in Primorye, even somewhere nearby. See Sinev's Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Russia, already discussed here. 2. There are 4 Celastrina species in Primorye, Celastrina ...
No it is not true. in Europe this species: dubia (Kenrick, 1914), our Orgyia dubia completely different author dubia (Tauscher, 1806).
This species is identified correctly.
Yes, they're already identified on the Valeria's website, no objections :).
Orgyia dubia.
Orgyia dubia.
Wasn't moved.
How come this was identified by Alexander Shpanev? Or it's Vasily's pseudonym :)
Brenthis ino.
Brenthis ino.
Coenonympha pamphilus.
Coenonympha pamphilus.
Polyommatus thersites & Polyommatus icarus.
Polyommatus icarus.
Polyommatus icarus.
Pseudopanthera macularia.
Carterocephalus palaemon.
Lycaena dispar.
News
- 12.10.2024: Fixed sorting/ordering errors (Gallery and Catalog sections)
- 10.10.2024: We fixed bad situation with photo captions for insect species that are not yet in the website database
- 31.08.2024: Первые итоги интеграции/переноса/дублирования Молбиола и Инсекты
New photos (19.10.2024)
Fresh from the community
- 13:24, P. Khramov: Not identified → Pseudozizeeria mah...
- 13:24, P. Khramov: / / → Pseudozizeeria maha / Con...
Popular insects
Recommended blog topics
- Meantime in Japan
- 20th International Insect Fair in Moscow (Russia, October 2023)
- The petition in defense of biological nomenclature
- Alive and paper butterflies by The American Museum of Natural History
