Insecta.pro Community
Asthena ochrifasciaria Leech, 1897
Grub
Lycidae sp.
I agree. Thank you, Ir !
Male
There's a female here.
Eilema griseola (Hubner, 1803)
Simpiezomias schoenherri ( Faust, 1882) was identified by Legalov A. A. Laboratory of Phylogeny and Faunogenesis of IS and EJ (Novosibirsk). In the database no.
Cycnotrachelodes cyanopterus (Motschulsky, 1860). In the database there is no
Anania sp ?
Polydrusus obsulus Faust, 1882 Identified Legals A. A. In the database no.
Polydrusus obsulus Faust, 1882 In the database no
Probably it would be more correct. Changed it to inaccurate ones. And there as Alexander decides.
Good
Vasily ! The distance between the wing tips is 108 mm. I clicked 1 picture with a ruler. If necessary, I can send it to Yandex. Mail ?
Alexander ! Yes, in general, I do too. From this picture, I would like to say that there is a different view here. . Reset V. A., the previous snapshot. , but she gave only a subfamily, and then they say without genitals in any way. I searched the Internet and decided on this option. Something went band genital species. Maybe it's better to move both images to the parent folder ? So I don't mind.
Peter ! I marked this and the previous image as not exactly defined. But if I put as not exact here, then the previous one immediately becomes exactly defined and vice versa. . Although these two images as one individual are not connected. Please sort it out.
It was determined partly by the images of the Internet, and the description. In general, according to Kirpichnikova, all representatives of this genus are genital.
All right Vasily !
Yes, beautiful.I took out another one today. I gave them both to straighten out, then I'll throw them off.
I saw this site. It seems that this is not all problems. I'll try to clarify on the spot
Dubatolov is here http://szmn.sbras.ru/picts/Heterocera/Sphingidae/Clanis_undulosa.htm gives the subspecies Clanis undulosa jankowskii Gehlen,., 1932
Clearly. Thank you Vasily!
Alexander ! It doesn't suit me either, and I hope so for you as a moderator and as a punctual person, too. 20-25 % doubt is a lot.Especially when it comes to several similar types. It is one thing when it comes simply to the complexity of the definition and there is a desire to communicate with the person who described the view and when after that it is clear that some differences still exist and ...
Anyone. Peter or moderators. it would be necessary to combine the types. Basis and what to combine here Gymnosoma rotundata (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Catalog (Herting and Dely-Draskovits, 1993). Dipterologists-specialists in Tachins-periodically changed the endings, redescribed species, and reduced them to synonyms (this is another difficulty of this group)....In the determinant (V. A. Richter) ...
I talked to the author who gave the description of the species. Here's the verdict. Almost all species ( including this one) of this genus are determined or confirmed by the structure of the genitals. So that it should be in not exactly defined ones. And yet, it is not so rare that the possibility of visual accurate determination is not excluded over time. But this is my speculation...And as for ...
Nymphalis xanthomelas (Esper, 1781)
And why is this, such a snapshot does not give anything.
Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus, 1758)
Asilidae
There seem to be enough pupae already. I threw it off because of the color difference. Which is dark pupated 3 days earlier and at first was yellow, normal and suddenly began to darken, which happens before the release of imago. The reason for the darkening most likely lies in the infection of the larva with some kind of parasite. While I left it, maybe something will come out of it.
Put while the view in not exact, there are doubts. If I can overcome them, I'll edit them in the future.
I wanted to add the subspecies in l/c, and not save it
Hypsopygia regina Definition confirmed by Kirpichnikova V. A. Gornotaezhnaya stantsiya DVO RAS. 13.07.16 g
Mongolotettix japonicus Bolívar, I., 1898 In the database no
Prumna ussuriensis . In the database no.
For A. dichotomus, , - I didn't find a snapshot either. Only the pic is in the determinant and it is different. But nothing, there will be material, it will be possible to compare species over time. Maybe one of the entomologists will throw it off. Complicating matters is that many leaf wrappers only describe the genitals and not a word about their appearance.
Alexander! I looked at the drawings. With your version of Archips xylosteana, I agree, All others are not suitable.
Vasily, it's simple. This is the 1st uploaded image, there were doubts. Then I searched the Internet again and came to the conclusion that we can definitely talk about the form. See the link below for more information about why it's not fun. http://blog.tamagaro.net/?p=3418. By the way, there is also a question on it, I just saw it now. If anyone has any doubts or links, please write to us.
Archips viola Falkovitsh, 1965 http://blog.tamagaro.net/?p=3418
Alexander! Thank you for the list ! There may not be a species in the catalog, but when the genus is known, it sometimes becomes easier to find out the species. Otherwise, the whole thing hangs indefinitely.
Duck is one individual. The side view is similar, but the top view is questionable. (previous imago).
Alexander ! If it is not difficult, throw a list of these 3 not found species. Maybe I'll find some drawings somewhere.
Good Alexander ! We are waiting, but who is it ? We practically do not deal with leaf wrappers. And to look on the Internet, it sometimes seems to me that there are almost no DV leafmakers on the Internet. .No matter how I start looking, it's not the same. Yes, I still get confused in them.
Archips rosana (Linnaeus, 1758) ?
Alexanlr ! For me, too, let it stand in the family. This is just one of those cases when you can't do without a specialist who clearly at least assured you that this is so-and-so.. You probably shouldn't rely on the Internet. Here in the Internet infa caught that O. koreana and O. ussurica are the same thing.But if you carefully look at the pictures, then somehow doubts appear., perhaps due to ...
Alexander ! From what I looked at, I decided on this option. O. koreana has a slightly different wing shape, especially in the apex. The tails on the hind wings are narrower and longer, the fringe color is slightly different, etc. It is more similar to the other variant of O. ussurica Inoue 1993. But the site doesn't list it in region 37.. In general, I am in favor of the variant of Ourapteryx ...
Melanthia procellata (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775)
I will say that this is Ourapteryx maculicaudaria (Motschulsky, 1866) .
Endropiodes indictinaria (Bremer, 1864)
News
- 17.11.2024: Импортированы и переведны последние свежие сообщения с форума. Обновлена страница «О сайте».
- 11.11.2024: The Community/Forum section has become more convenient
- 11.11.2024: Improved scaling of images in the Forum/Community
New photos (21.11.2024)
Fresh from the community
- 22:20, P. Khramov: Lampyridae / Tentatively identified...
- 21:35, A. M.: Sure. It's done. (Sorry to say I ha...
Popular insects
Recommended blog topics
- Entomological seminar in Moscow on November 13
- The petition in defense of biological nomenclature
- 20th International Insect Fair in Moscow (Russia, October 2023)
- Butterflies attacked the Euro 2016 final
