Pages: 1 ...59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67... 169
Peter transferred to the doubtful mind. From what you can see, I did not endure. The photographs presented Alexander Kuzmin, photo largely corresponds Erannis jacobsoni. Can mix photos, because the edge band is narrowed in the photo just at Erannis jacobsoni. Now again I go into this question do not want to.I think the question remains open on a photo are not 100% guarantee.
It's definitely not Apotomis capreana. Variant of the answer more than two views will unfortunately not definite angle and quality of copies. do not allow to make the correct determination.
Corrected data. Not identified / Imago → Cucullia pustulata / Confidently identified / Larva / Alexandr Zhakov.
Basil, and here the "Note of the author", talking about the top line, which should clarify the classification and age of caterpillars, like so decided, not amateur. His advice leave with me, they do not stand or anything (not for me, not for others, only harm them site). On this photo you sent me himself asking him to look http: // lepidoptera.ru / taxonomy / 6703, not obessud I looked and ...
Basil, you bring food plants, the ones in which you feed a butterfly? then it is a special case and it should be on the page where the photo if it is a complete list of literature, then why not ?, available literature and is under the personal message? This I mean that need any information on the page is the form, not the photo.
Fedor, which indicates that it is a generalization of the information? This is a personal message to the "detailed information" and is very honestly :) And there is a human desire to seek the monographs aggregated data.
Yuri. I do not think printsepialno if they are connected to the group. But it's better to specify, since the rank of the taxon may vary.and erect it in the rank of a species, butterflies pass, and caterpillars and pupae remain with the old view :) Basil, when there is not any information on the pupal stage, the personal observations can not be superfluous, complemented by a generalization of ...
I have two questions. :) By Yuri first: The date the form on the page pupa 10.06- 30 .06. butterflies and photo 21. 06. and 23 .06 should be appropriate.And then a clarification: not Lifetime pupa , and Time pupal stage By the second Basil: And where it says that the page can not give a specific type of information? To do this, and there is a function "Add Video Info", where everyone ...
Not like she Hoplodrina blanda, I would say N. octogenaria. That's right, more like a octogenaria, than blanda. Especially with a photo editor. Basil is a complex group of reliably only the genitals. And a set of attributes. It is better to hold.
I agree that not Chazara prieuri, it is necessary to remove from view, I would like to hear confirmation Chazara enervata
Corrected data. Not identified / Imago → Chazara persephone / Confidently identified / Female / Nikolay Grebennikov.
Corrected data. Not identified / Imago → Chazara persephone / Confidently identified / Female / Nikolay Grebennikov.
Shamil, keep experimenting, very well turned out, but it is a pity of course, that the flying specimens. Basil, you've got the photo editor eats fine details, and there is no border between the white fringe and the background. I prefer black, but probably need a middle 50% of black :) gray.
Yuri and I about the same, according to the chrysalis of fodder plants or anything can be said, could pripolsti from any other. :) In the family many similar species we probyvat determine. :)