Pages: 1 ...23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Why reacted to oreas? But somehow I have it not fit into the other. Copper-butterfly. I found in the internet that's kind of like like http://www.treefrog.ru/photo/category/14-oreas.html The picture took off.
Ira, and why should they be the only 2 places? Remember the story of the Pacific marshmallow, which was known only to the Blue Ridge. Dr. Example: On the tracks of marshmallows, -vezde write and say what they have to look at height, on top of the tree. But I found them at a height of 1 m from the ground With regard to the file. Well-il, I will cast his Belyaev.If he is not on a business ...
I would not tolerate, at least for now. Like all came to the conclusion that of information in this case is not enough
If you focus on the core underside and nature spots I would have brought it to the Maslowskia filipjevi Riley. What confuses? Kurentsov writes: The underside of both sexes silvery white ..... In this case, about the underside do not say. What though of nothing says, along with a painting, fly, including together with silver and white (Chinese ploskosemyannik near growing).In general, it seems ...
I think it still looks more of Pieris bryoniae. Here Berlov's pic, just compare http://babochki.narod.ru/pi24pr.html. The same strong veins and large "median cell" on sides of its head. As for the very cell, might call it wrong, please correct.
Question to all. According to Kourentzov the underside's venation of both hind and forewings has dark brown or greenish lurid fringe, the species is Pieris napi. Here we have P. melete. Anyone can comment why it's melete and what's the difference?
Dmitry, would you please look at http://lepidoptera.pro/gallery/21256? I reckon these two are the same species, and the streaks look alike. Would be great to hear your opinion, whether I'm right or wrong.
Alexandr, thanks! Looks like not entirely hopeless, there is a beam of light! Sure, there's a way with a will, and maybe it's the best solution. Anyway, would be great to find a shorter way, to discuss things out and eventually clear them up. Definitely.
Petr! Don't you please taunt. Or if the very website administrator is talking like that, shalll the whole website be deleted as hopeless, totally of no use?
Well, looks like we have no experts in Pieridae. Then the whole family should be removed from the website.
Yeah, right. C'est la vie as it's said. What's about the very species? May this suit http://lepidoptera.pro/gallery/7679?
"Yury, what would you think identifying species in nature photo?" Vasily, you didn't answer the question.
Petr, lesson learned. Henceforth will keep an eye on that. As for photos of mine, I randomly checked several, so no bugs.
Guys, would you please take more care in the section "Other photos of this specimen"? There is an underside pic, just look on the right and you may see that.
Vasily! May I ask something please? What did you base upon to ID this as dulcinea (I checked the link given)? What made you think this a sure thing? Taking into account I'm not a pro, just want to clear things up.
Petr, might it have appeared after the Sinev's book? Anyway, the species is described in the book "Pyralids (Lepidoptera, Pyraloidea: Pyralidae, Crambidae) of the fauna оf Russian Far East", V. A. Kirpichnikova, Dal'nauka, Vladivostok (2009), V. L. Komarov Mountain-Taiga Station, Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. See page 286 or tables 1, 46.
Petr, you were right! I've checked the page from different PCs, so it works good there. Appears my browser bug to find it out, why it happens with this very file only.
Petr. Nothing happens. It somehow goes wrong only with this very file. Because new species? Suggest to remove, besides it has a wrong name. I'll reupload once it gets surely identified.
Ira, what did you see, is one thing. But zde underside of a particular image, on the other. Place in which no one has proved that it is such a unique look.
Thank you all! Perhaps now no one will disagree that to uniquely identify the type of data is not enough. In pritsipe picture can be removed-as useless.