Photo #33650: Arguda erectilinea

28.10.2014 8:11, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Nothing more to do with it is not necessary - it is in his place.

27.10.2014 22:55, Peter Khramov

Well so what, another kind of drifts in Odonestis?

25.10.2014 11:52, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Let zabem as a subspecies. Ie erectilinea lipara Tams, 1935.

25.10.2014 11:50, Peter Khramov

Yes, sort of not quite normal. Where is the general opinion, where this kind of carry? And about sympatric also interesting to listen to ...

24.10.2014 19:47, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Peter, then, probably to blame, twice mentioned in our correspondence with Dmitry, comrade, "Holloway" Holloway , but it really is very famous for joint and incomprehensibility qualifier :) It has proved popular for a long time ... Everything is fine here .. :)

24.10.2014 19:37, Peter Khramov

Hmm. Chet not quite caught up with me about this most sympatric. Taki is the period when the species can still be considered the same, but its different populations, which are not geographically separated, do not interbreed with each other?

24.10.2014 19:25, Vasiliy Feoktistov Corrected data.

Odonestis lipara → Arguda erectilinea.

24.10.2014 19:18, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Vasily motivate "consider him still a subspecies Arguda erectilinea"

24.10.2014 19:02, Vasiliy Feoktistov

It is hard to decide on her own. Confused and almost all the links lead to the moths of borneo, where a lot of unknown classification .....
However, there are a subspecies of eol Odonestis erectilinea lipara Tams, 1935 : http://eol.org/pages/30590577/overview And there funet.fi view Arguda erectilinea Swinhoe, 1904 (without subspecies), which has spread just on Borneo and Sumatra: http: //ftp.funet.fi / index / Tree_of_life / insecta / lepidoptera / ditrysia / bombycoidea / lasiocampidae / lasiocampinae / arguda / summarize the information and views, take stillArguda erectilineaand transfer photos to this species. And created incorrectly because of confusion in the classification of the form Odonestis lipara Tams, 1935 to remove from here because I believe it still subspecies Arguda erectilinea. I would like to ask more reviews :)

24.10.2014 12:55, Vasiliy Feoktistov

In the evening's see now, with good intentions, I have no time. Maybe in the evening, and other fresh ideas will :)
P.S. Here 'Friend' Holloway or somebody similar, apparently put his hand tightly .....

24.10.2014 12:46, Dmitriy Pozhogin

What's not clear? We need to solve this kind of subspecies or erectilinea all !!! If you believe vidom- score view race. If subspecies / form - then carry erectilinea

24.10.2014 12:43, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Nothing is clear .. And Arguda erectilinea Swinhoe, 1904 there: http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/65106
Understand more do you want? Or transfer? Or view is there to do?

24.10.2014 12:40, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Rod even listed here.

24.10.2014 12:36, Vasiliy Feoktistov

The head hurts already, Dimitri. From firewood? Rhode there: http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/29148

24.10.2014 12:36, Dmitriy Pozhogin

More specifically there are 3 types. Genus described by Arguda decurtata Moore, 1879

24.10.2014 12:34, Dmitriy Pozhogin

In vain did. Both species belong to the genus are now Arguda Moore, 1879

24.10.2014 12:26, Vasiliy Feoktistov

The link that I brought below, there are many types.
Essential and suffered, in short :)

24.10.2014 12:25, Dmitriy Pozhogin

By definition, the genus name should be in the plural. Plum silkworms. A view of this sort are not alone. Although God knows already.

24.10.2014 12:24, Vasiliy Feoktistov Corrected data.

Not identified → Odonestis lipara / Confidently identified / Dmitriy Pozhogin.

24.10.2014 12:22, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Here it is: http://eol.org/pages/385847/overview here and do in the old Odonestis (Germar, 1812) There, in the way one views the genus: Odonestis pruni (Linnaeus, 1758 ) and all that generation after him named Silkworm plum , consider it wrong and the Russian name of the genus name is clear: http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/1197

24.10.2014 12:13, Dmitriy Pozhogin

First www.mothsofborneo.com - kosyachny garbage and there is so much Holloway hung noodles, even in simple Saturn and revelers could not understand. Top Borneo nothing, but you need to check back every time.
In vtoryh- is not born with a double name, as many believe lipara subspecies / form Odonestis erectilinea.The latter type of material, and I caught me there, but genital differences with lipara there is no no. Still I think this is kind-Odonestis lipara, in my opinion.

24.10.2014 12:09, Peter Khramov

Well so there Well written everything. There are two views - that this subspecies erectilinea and that an independent view. The first link is written, they say, as long as no geo isolation Borneo lёtayut simultaneously erectilinea and lipara, then it is not a subspecies, and the same kind of independent. Although, if I remember correctly, this can be within a species, but right now is definitely not dogonyams ...Or, Dmitry, you are these staples like something else to say?

24.10.2014 11:33, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Where it is necessary to drive a deal.
Or here: http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-3/lasiocampidae/lasiocampidae_14_2.php?
Or here: http://eol.org/pages/30590577/overview?
Rod with a double or a subgenus called to do anything I do not understand this math (
The site already has a kind of http://lepidoptera.ru/taxonomy/1197, with a single species.
I think that all the same genus: Odonestis erectilinea Swinhoe 1904 to do, but I can not fully understand. And so please help :)

24.10.2014 11:27, Dmitriy Pozhogin

What kind of clarification? From whom?

24.10.2014 10:25, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Many unknown overlooking. While I will not do anything. It is necessary for clarification.

24.10.2014 8:45, Dmitriy Pozhogin

Odonestis (erectilinea) lipara Tams, 1935