Photo #22901: Lepidoptera sp.

27.10.2013 13:15, Peter Khramov

Guys, if you would like to discuss the very moving subj (not concerning this very pic), please welcome to a special thread http://lepidoptera.pro/community/17182

27.10.2013 11:56, Alexandr Zhakov

The reliable website is not one with little of not identified pics but instead many properly identified. You read it wrong. As for some solution for not identified images, Petr can easily delete them with one-finger move whilst tentatively identified will get lost amidst thousands, especially when someone multiplies such, should pay some more attention to such IDs. :)

27.10.2013 11:05, Sergei Kotov

Really can't I understand why for anyway the website would need such a huge amount of photos not identified??? Once you said that you wanted to have a "reliable website". Well the site with so many not identified pics can't be "reliable" by default and even will ne-ver be-come one! That's the reason why experts run away from this website like rabbits, just because it's full of needlees and for some reason kept for centuries images of species which are not identified. This should be solved somehow. I reckon that there should be little of not identified pics, totally hopeless cases when it's impossible to ID properly even genus/family, or when there are dozen more similar species, not two—three as we have here. Rest should be solved somehow. I suggested to move this to Yponomeuta padella tentatively identified. Ok, if don't want to, please don't, let it stays in not identified for some indefinite reason and time.

27.10.2013 9:02, Alexandr Zhakov

Sergei, a bad example brought, Amphipoea, visually determined without genitals, with high probability, the tech is important habitats, and other factors. In this case, we deliberately write lies.we know that the definition of 50/50, we do not know the differences between these species (in other regions there may be more than 2), and should be the premise on which we transfer photos to this species, but not another, there is no why. There are wonderful pictures Gumenyuk Vitali, who laid on the site of about 3,000 photos.But to its definition, I am very cautious when bvbochki were not identified in the mobiole. Now I will very carefully refers to the definitions of Sergei Kotov, by the fact that it requires to transfer photos without defining what a sight. :) Struggling with a folder "Type not defined", do not fight it.Although I think that these kinds of photo concrete can be and let these photos are on the pages of the species. but not those that demanded :))) Kotov.

27.10.2013 2:54, Sergei Kotov

I agree, I admit my guilt, I hurried. Again, I did not consider the factor of similar species. Butterfly on the photo may turn out to be Yponomeuta padella.
In this case, I suggest to proceed as follows. Move all the same the whole group of photos in the ill-defined Yponomeuta malinellus.As on this site has been used this practice, and I see no reason to not use it again. A typical example - the kind of scoops Amphipoea. These three species, all of which, strictly speaking, they differ only in the genitals. However, on this site we have them transferred to a still ill-defined or Amphipoea fucosa Amphipoea oculea.I propose in this case (and in all such cases) to do so.
So, I suggest (not even insist) to move this photo in ill-defined

27.10.2013 2:52, Peter Khramov

Sergey, if not difficult, do not use an empty string in comments, they are visually strong tear text (the difference between the portions of text in a visual commentary becomes greater than the difference between the individual commentaries). And in fact, yes, the people, such cases have been and probably will be (about ill-defined or vague at all).Who thinks that?

27.10.2013 2:45, Sergei Kotov

I agree, I admit my guilt, I hurried. Again, I did not consider the factor of similar species. Butterfly on the photo may turn out to be Yponomeuta padella.

In this case, I suggest to proceed as follows. Move all the same the whole group of photos in the ill-defined Yponomeuta malinellus.As on this site has been used this practice, and I see no reason to not use it again. A typical example - the kind of scoops Amphipoea. These three species, all of which, strictly speaking, they differ only in the genitals. However, on this site we have them transferred to a still ill-defined or Amphipoea fucosa Amphipoea oculea.I propose in this case (and in all such cases) to do so.

So, I suggest (not even insist) to move this photo in ill-definedYponomeuta malinellus.

27.10.2013 1:29, Alexandr Zhakov

Sergey, how do you distinguish Yponomeuta malinellus and Yponomeuta padella?

26.10.2013 22:42, Sergei Kotov

Agree, let's wait for Alexandr's confirmation or disproof. He's better in these.

26.10.2013 22:18, Vasiliy Feoktistov

It should be a confirmation / denial. This group "with a light hand" is usually not defined.
Wrap long wait.

26.10.2013 21:57, Shamil Murtazin

Oh, finally they decided :)

26.10.2013 15:40, Sergei Kotov

Yponomeuta malinellus