Insecta.pro Community

Pages: 1 ...67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75... 80

13.03.2011 10:31, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7269

Gonodonta pyrgo (Cramer, 1777).

13.03.2011 10:29, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7267

The species is added to the database/approved.

13.03.2011 10:29, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7267

This species is identified correctly.

13.03.2011 10:23, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7283

Apatelodes firmiana (Stoll, [1782]), imho, suits best.

13.03.2011 10:07, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7271

The species is added to the database/approved.

13.03.2011 10:07, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7271

This species is identified correctly.

13.03.2011 10:06, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7201

The species is added to the database/approved.

13.03.2011 10:06, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7201

This species is identified correctly.

13.03.2011 10:05, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7257

The species is added to the database/approved.

13.03.2011 10:03, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7257

This species is identified correctly.

13.03.2011 9:53, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7262

? Citheronia hamifera, W.Rothschild, 1907. Species of this genus vary in color much.

13.03.2011 9:37, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7224

The species is added to the database/approved.

13.03.2011 9:35, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7224

Letis occidua male (Linnaeus, 1758).

13.03.2011 9:24, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7244

This species is identified correctly.

12.03.2011 11:52, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7187

Syngamia florella (Stoll, 1781).

12.03.2011 11:51, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7223

Cyclopis caecutiens (Hübner, [1821]).

11.03.2011 14:51, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6078

Dmitry! Wrote a comment but in the morning forgot to send it :) I've got this butterfly to my collection and identified that at the end of the past century when there was no annulata at all :) So, I'm definitely not "upset".

11.03.2011 6:27, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6079

The species is added to the database/approved.

11.03.2011 6:27, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6079

Colobura annulata, Willmott, Constantini & Hall, 2001.

11.03.2011 6:27, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6078

The species is added to the database/approved.

11.03.2011 6:27, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6078

This species is identified correctly.

11.03.2011 6:27, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6078

Colobura annulata, Willmott, Constantini & Hall, 2001.

11.03.2011 5:50, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #5492

The species is added to the database/approved.

11.03.2011 5:50, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #5492

This species is identified correctly.

11.03.2011 5:49, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #5492

Hylesia teratex (Draudt, 1929). Alexandr is right!

11.03.2011 5:48, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6232

The species is added to the database/approved.

11.03.2011 5:47, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6232

Male.

11.03.2011 5:44, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6232

This species is identified correctly.

09.03.2011 17:15, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6372

Well, this also turns out to be Caligula boisduvalii if we take into account Yury's remark about no jonasii in Russian fauna. There is actually only this species in the Catalog, but also japonica, Moore, 1862. It looks absolutely not like japonica caterpillar which has light blue spots on its side segments, so I suggest therefore boisduvalii. Agree?

09.03.2011 16:58, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6481

It's Caligula in the Catalogue, so let's consider it as a default, as we agreed before.

04.03.2011 6:37, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7111

The species is added to the database/approved.

04.03.2011 6:37, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7111

To "uncertain"!

04.03.2011 6:33, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7081

This species is identified correctly.

04.03.2011 6:29, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7160

Dmitry! Decide yourself and move it to "uncertain"!

04.03.2011 6:26, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7160

But there ...

04.03.2011 5:47, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6910

The species is added to the database/approved.

03.03.2011 23:55, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7160

Lean to melusinalis.

03.03.2011 23:34, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #7016

This species is identified correctly.

03.03.2011 23:01, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6910

Looked through all meant, can't see differences between this one and Apatelodes lapitha! Anyway, we can move it to "uncertain" due to the species varies so much and not so explored (can it be explored whatsoever?!!!)

03.03.2011 22:54, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6910

Also, no way for Apatelodes pandara: the line is straight! And all species have a big foretop spot.

03.03.2011 22:51, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6910

Yes, and Apatelodes dianita is in Bolivia.

03.03.2011 22:49, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6910

Well, this is more similar, Apatelodes lapitha: http://www.barcodinglife.com/views/taxbrowser.php?taxid=162366 (Guyane Française).

03.03.2011 19:37, Evgeny Komarov: comment on photo #6910

Good, that we're already talking about family/genus! Anyway, don't approve genus. Palmi and Apatelodes torrefacta, well shown in web, have curvy bands on its forewings. Apatelodes princeps has close pattern, but other features don't suit: http://fr.treknature.com/gallery/South_America/Venezuela/photo196081.htm. Now can surely name only genus.