Insecta.pro Community
Pages: 1 ...33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41... 51
Ortholepis betulae (Goeze, 1778) ??
Eilema griseolum (Hubner, [1803]) ???
Olga! The spread underside photo needed. It's male, by the way. Better to have it prepared. Might appear to be something new.
Arhopala centaurus nakula, male???
What's family?
Druceiella amazonensis?
Might be perchance Eriocrania semipurpurella (Stephens, 1835). ??
The underside needed.
Male.
Vagrans egista male (Cramer, [1780]).
This species is identified correctly.
Xanthorhoe ferrugata maybe??
That's not ino.
Thanks, I'll check it.
Possible to look at its upper-side?
This is Junonia orithya female. Junonia coenia is an American species.
This is Junonia orithya female.
It's clear just as it "fell off an ashberry tree".
Male.
This species is identified correctly.
This is Euploea crameri female, a good thing.
This is an Aporia crataegi pupa.
Why, it actually might be there. You can't say surely without some attributes not seen on photo.
25.05.2012, Yury Karpov: I looked right into its eyes. Well, your ophthalmology skills seem to be bad support. You'd rather read something on Neptis.
What do you actually mean???
How come you identified it as Neptis sappho?
Papilio polytes ledebouria male.
Alexandr! I unluckily have no Papilio polytes ledebouria female only male so can't compare. You should've seen its females in Thailand, Papilio polytes romulus subspecies [Cramer, 1775]. As the photo was not signed, I identified it as polytes and even now I'm sure of that it's a polytes female. As for the Papilio alphenor, the article is to be looked up.
I'll try to clear the situation. Papilio alphenor Cramer, [1776]; is described as a species, http://www.archive.org/stream/deuitlandschekap11779cram#page/n381/mode/1up, then it's noted as a subspecies of Papilio polytes alphenor ; Rothschild, 1895, http://www.archive.org/stream/novitateszoologi02lond#page/351/mode/1up, also there is such a thing like Papilio alphenor ; Vane-Wright & de Jong, ...
Papilio polytes female.
This species is identified correctly.
This is Papilio polytes female, tails already torn off.
Thanks!
The exact size really needed. Please, note if it's not hard for you to. No doubt as for the species itself, I just need it for statistics.
Vasily! Would you please tell its size and, if possible, the label? By e-mail if you'd like.
Olga! I would kindly ask you to upload more pre-imago stage photos since there are lots of imago stage ones. As to all species.
Olga, Vasily, what makes you both feel doubtful? This genus shows marked sexual dimorphism as well as many Pieridae do. This is a female though you can see the male too on the other photo. In Vietnam I came across the mass flight or migration maybe of this species. I could see at that moment hundreds of flying butterflies albeit it was rather hard to catch one.
Aglia tau female.
Pararge aegeria.
If you still own the specimen, I'd advise you to boil it then to make sure since the hind wings confuse. Yet only Euploea mulciber can have such shining forewings.
synonyms.
Skip my turn. Could be lots of.
This species is identified correctly.
That was supposed right. No variants.
Would be cool to see its underside.
This species is identified correctly.
Some of those moths fly in the daytime.
Gah, there's the rub!
Pupa photo, if possible?
I'll check it once get home.
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 (22.11.2024)
Fresh from the community
- 8:58, E. Komarov: Алексей Адамов Здравствуйте Евген...
- 23:07, N. Pichugin: Всем доброго времени суток! Откликн...
Popular insects
Recommended blog topics
- Entomological seminar in Moscow on November 13
- Interview with Alexander Zatakovoy, one of the wild Russian entomologists
- Entomologist? What kind of job is it?
- Butterflies and music: Massive Attack / The Sea and Cake
