Community and Forum → Comments on insects taxa
Show: All comments in a row. All comments, except for the technical ones.
Pages: 1 ...3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11... 15
Returning to the sailing vessels: the site has subgenera - ahillides, geraklides etc., But Chilasa reason no .... disorder!
The error associated with poorly developed taxonomy of the family. Now all this work, as the publication will come - then it will refer to that.
Note to the form Spartopteryx kindermanniaria (removed from the base of 23.12.2014 17:13): Peter, this double page http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/5135, you want to merge. In Sinev and faunaeur.org - Spartopteryx kindermannaria (Staudinger 1871) ( no i )
Dear experts! Is it possible to reliably distinguish between a photo of a maleHyponephele lycaonof the imagoHyponephele lupinus? The photo living butterfly, side view, underside of the wings, front wing is seen by half, about like this: http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/12149, location shooting - Volgograd. I do not want to upload a photo, if there is no chance of definition.
For two species (including this): http://szmn.sbras.ru/Lepidop/Arctiid.htm In the summer, we have identified them with you from all kinds of Argina Asian species (there are comments), and the impetus for this separation served as a commentary on molbiole VV Dubatolov exposed to me there is a butterfly :)
Stas, you can throw a source that can be prostavyat as adding species taxon in? It would be better with a preliminary zaneneseniem him in Literature section (if it is not there).
Stas, you can throw a source that can be prostavyat as an addendum of this taxon in the system? It would be better with a preliminary zaneneseniem him in Literature section (if it is not there).
Boursin Stas was written in the admin., When the photo was there, and then the math is simple: on the site in this genus species described this man go under the name Boursin : Cryphia sugitanii Boursin, 1961 ; Cryphia bryophasma (Boursin, 1951) ; Cryphia amygdalina (Boursin, 1963) ; Cryphia ochsi (Boursin, 1940) :) So it is necessary to correct: these are no coincidences.
Peter, then to the synonyms for the title should be corrected typos, should write = tschetverikovi. But in general the subspecies tschetverikovi (Kurentsov, 1936) in Sinev given to Neptis deliquata Stichel, 1908, and here on the site Neptis tschetverikovi Kurentzov, 1936 is a separate kind of http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/120389.
Yes they are the same everywhere :) Just aglitskim problem as posted below ..... Moreover, biological, where he goes often mixed with Latin :)
It must be combined with Pingasa ruginaria (Guenée, 1857): http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/59272 It is a subspecies of it, rather than a separate species.
It is necessary to add the following subtypes: Pingasa ruginaria andamanica Prout, 1916 Pingasa ruginaria communicans (Walker, 1860) Pingasa ruginaria commutata (Walker, 1860) Pingasa ruginaria interrupta Warren, 1901 Pingasa ruginaria pacifica Inoue, 1964 And of synonyms remove Pingasa ruginaria andamanica Prout, 1916 and Pingasa ruginaria pacifica Inoue, 1964 . Subspecies in ...
Already there :) In general, for such issues is a separate issue: http://lepidoptera.ru/community/18428 and ask them better there.
Celastrina ladon (Cramer, [1780]), but in any case, not Lycaena violacea. someone, something messed up synonyms.
Peter brought to the "ideal". Extra subspecies on this page still have! D. o. pseudosignifera (Boursin, 1952). D. o. pseudosignifera (Boursin, 1952). D. o. pygmaea (Hampson, 1903). D. o. pygmaea (Hampson, 1903). And then you can clean up and comments.
http://eol.org/pages/149296/names/synonyms http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/Tree_of_life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/nymphalidae/satyrinae/ypthima/ Even if you leave Ypthima argus, the views are not described (Fabricius, 1775) !!! and Butler, 1878 Fabricius described Papilio baldus Fabricius, 1775. I do not know what motivated the team blue.
Because in the conflict between the types of infe Fauna Evropeey and the blue of the default priority at Fauna. But synonymous added, so that the search in any case will be triggered for both options.
Peter, figure it out, please. It turns out that one species in the genus. And this kind was created by mistake, due to confusion in the classification (Photography I suffered and the grounds are now here: http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/33650
Basil, about the migration of butterflies talk tomorrow at the meeting. This page is no longer Saurimo.