Photo #24197: Agonopterix propinquella

19.03.2014 16:31, Alexandr Zhakov Corrected data.

Not identified → Agonopterix propinquella / Tentatively identified / Irina Nikulina.

19.03.2014 15:55, Irina Nikulina

It would have carried aAgonopterix propinquella(cm. Comment to # 24196), but with somewhat less certainty). Of the 20 species of the revised confuse some images related speciesAgonopterix laterellahttp://pathpiva.wifeo.com /agonopterix-laterella.php

26.10.2013 3:02, Sergei Kotov

Clear. No questions.

26.10.2013 3:00, Peter Khramov

Sergei, because of Yuri and saith. They say that on the genitals - in one pile, and that is not the genitals, but so far only to a genus or even a superspecies taxon - those in another.

26.10.2013 2:31, Sergei Kotov

"and perhaps there will be more time to cool spices and something will go from the category of race, in the category of view, without any cooking" - it does not happen. Either members of the group and all the experts are always determined only on the genitals or not. One of the two. There is no third.

26.10.2013 2:26, Yuri Semejkin

Peter! I wanted to remind you that should not be lumped together those just identified to genus and Those Where determination of the kind made to date only the genitals. They should be isolated separately.Then consider them to be more convenient and may appear over time steeper spices and something will go from the category of race, in the category of view, without any cooking.

26.10.2013 1:31, Alexandr Zhakov

Remove only need low-quality photos. All others may eventually decide. This is especially true remote regions, will open a new life and a good sprinkling definition :)

25.10.2013 23:50, Peter Khramov

It is simply an extra choice to make, to the uncertain, imprecise definition and precise definition be added to the definition superspecies taxon. Then those who are looking uncertain same, foty eyesore will not, and the new images will be views in this open.

25.10.2013 23:45, Irina Nikulina

Yeah, I understand) only where the criterion of exhaustion chance?) And suddenly more "cool", "monster" peep later?)) And what about the reference to the old and above should, it seems to me to discuss and solve technical. Perhaps allocating these photos separate space / section.

25.10.2013 23:33, Sergei Kotov

Yes, about what I had in mind. And not "monsters of the universe" (this is already too much), but steep experts! :)

25.10.2013 23:23, Peter Khramov

Irina, I think, Sergey meant that even after the photos uploaded, if the monsters of the universe expressed in that spirit, that determination is not likely to, such foty I should delete.
Q. By the way, interesting.Especially considering that for a long time expressed the wish that bind foty could not only view, but also from one side to the subspecies, and on the other - and to the genus, or even higher, if the form is unknown ...

25.10.2013 21:48, Irina Nikulina

I'm not sure that in a few days I can participate in the discussion on this topic. so little I say today.I have here a note-issue (mainly, Sergei ... and to all who are interested in this topic)) - as well as the author of photos, which are the bulk of his are not experts, entomologists, should know in advance what pictures they should put on the site, and what - no?I seldom put in vague picture, I try to do a lot of work beforehand, by definition, involving all the -VA and methods), and yet, of course, knowledge and capabilities are not enough.But certainly I can not pre-suppose that the provided with the hope of the help of experts photo will "butterfly of hopelessly indeterminate photo groups", and therefore the very picture gets into the category of "unnecessary site."Well, is not given to the layman is to guess, sorry!"It is obvious that in these photos butterfly NEVER be determined" (I'm sorry - it is obvious to whom? Sometimes, encountering strange butterfly, try to remove it without disturbing (still Macro 1-10sm conducted from a distance), and there's not think about it, that she was not beautiful enough or 'unaesthetic site "sits).And you hope that soon with the help of your overall know her name) ... and beautiful with well-known types of me "in the bins" tens of GB, can be infinitely set - but what for them as site?And more ... Sergey (also no offense) - I think that so many exclamation marks (often in your posts) a little too much), they are emotionally overwhelmed even lined reasonable arguments. All of us people here seem to be adequate and are able to hear a quiet tone.And, to be honest, I even felt a little guilty myself)) for such a foolish statement. Well at least for the quality of the photo I answer his head))
As for returning to the uncertain ... When I first came here, Al. Zhakov said in the discussion here http: // lepidoptera.ru / gallery / 21279 "I want to, and this site was a serious" - and I agreed with him then and I continue to wish for it now)

25.10.2013 20:40, Peter Khramov

Sergei, the subject of what foty needed and what is not, has repeatedly raised the site. And yet, I think, will go up. Now I finish the new "Community", there will be forumoobraznaya part, including and a section of the photo. Let wound up there, and the topic will clarify these questions. (Will be ready in a day or two.)

25.10.2013 20:24, Sergei Kotov

Alexander, though yours, even more remains uncertain.

But in this regard, I offer to all. I suggest (even insist) on how to create a separate topic in the community (that is not flood hurl) with the aim to discuss the question: why, for what purpose do we need such a site is hopelessly undetectable photos.The word "hopeless" I understand these pictures when there is no general (even the minimum) hope that they ever determined.Why such a site need photo? In my opinion, the only thing that can justify the existence of the photos on the site - their aesthetic appeal, or in which they are made some unusual, exotic location.If successful, quality-made photo shows a beautiful butterfly, then this photograph has a right to life, even shown her butterfly determine there is absolutely no way. The latter applies, in particular, most of the photographs taken by the author Konstantin Krajewski.Many of his photos are undefined, and moreover never be identified due to the fact that they are made in a very exotic region (Guyana, river pool Kuyun). But these are the photos have a right to exist on the site, as they are made with high quality and aesthetic appeal.But there is a website and an opposite example - on mnogoh photo Khramova author Peter (Peter, no offense, because it is the truth) it is not clear on what quality photographs show not understand what kind of gray moths.And in some cases quite impossible to say (as in one of his comments quite rightly said Alexander), even what kind of family. It is obvious that in these photos butterfly NEVER be determined. They never will hang a dead weight on the website undefined infinite amount of time.It is also unclear why the website photos even of good quality, but made in the region and non-exotic (and most importantly), which shows a butterfly from a hopelessly indeterminate group photo (the same kind of Agonopterix, for example, according to Alexandra). In fact pipiski pictures do not tear and alkali they do not cook.Why are these photos need a site? What for??? Unclear….

25.10.2013 18:53, Alexandr Zhakov

Continued lower fasting accidentally loaded.
propinquella, some types of images are not found. And the catalog is not a dogma, new all time are. And let you prove that it is this or that kind, but I'm not that this is a misnomer.Do not rush to weigh everything, and if in doubt, say in this case, once again shift responsibility for determining the other. Here no one asks to urgently define whether not certain, over time, and the specialist will determine the right and will not pick the wrong definition.

25.10.2013 18:46, Alexandr Zhakov

Sergey, I correct your mistakes, and you vozmuschaeshsya, should I be indignant, and ban the wrong definition of too much for one person. Your desire to rake the pile of undetermined species is very commendable but do not do it by eye, and seems to come, experts still are not here, are not correct.There are professionals and see the error.
To begin with, I'm not an expert in this group, if I have to, I do Lvov pass, but see species differences I can, and Viger that the two Agonopterix not meet arenella. and this could be ostanovitsya.i translate their part.But looking at the catalog blue of this genus can offer for at least three kinds: ciliella, laterella,

25.10.2013 17:18, Sergei Kotov

Alexander, what do you say? Waiting for an answer!

25.10.2013 16:59, Sergei Kotov

First, read what I have said here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/2505.
Second, what other options ??? It is not Ukraine and central Russia !!!!!!!! The fauna of butterflies, by definition, much poorer! What then there may be similar species, among which could be doubted except Agonopterix arenella (taking into account the specific location where the picture was taken !!!).To criticize is ready just in !!! And to suggest that something constructive want !!!!!!! :( :( :(
In general, it is a Agonopterix arenella, or offer other options with which this butterfly can be confused (and that those same options are met in the Kaluga region, Borovsky district).

My strength there is no longer tolerate it !!!!!!!!! ((((((((

25.10.2013 16:51, Peter Khramov

Alexander's your comment was, right?

25.10.2013 16:33, Alexandr Zhakov

Sergey, tell me, how do you so confidently confirm the species from such a difficult group like Agonopterix, even their AL Lviv, to determine the exact picks for cooking. :). It is notAgonopterix arenella, that lighter.

25.10.2013 15:27, Sergei Kotov This species is identified correctly.

25.10.2013 15:24, Irina Nikulina

Agonopterix arenella?