Photo #35478: Odontodes pallidifimbria

28.11.2014 9:01, Alexandr Zhakov

Basil, and a European? http://lepidoptera.ru not believe :))
By mothsofborneo.com you yourself have repeatedly expressed doubt that he was not consistent with your answer choice, but there are images of the genitals, that's the key to a guaranteed definition.
http: //www.boldsystems.org American and there (repeat) under that specific name of three butterflies, and only one corresponds to your images. But as already wrote in the family for more than 20 kinds of spread and images that we do not know at the previous site only 3 types, and this is bad.
The fact that you have two identical butterflies in general about what does not speak.Yes, I agree that they comply with one of the image and of http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=588678 http://www.mothsofborneo.com. but this is the only image on the network, and with determination in this case, you have to be careful and not definitive.Basil, we are not on your nelly not want to detract from your determination, your just categorical judgment in this case does not work, and in case of an error site brings negative effect.

28.11.2014 5:04, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Peter, that's it: it may fit, it may not fit under any of the options. At present, of the three, I do not see any resemblance with one of the other two and, therefore, put into precise. Especially look, in my opinion very maloizmenchivy: loaded a second copy., Who looks almost indistinguishable from the first. Maybe later, and will be the third, it is necessary to dig (not rule)...... At the moment, options do not see and do not know will they ever (
I would be very grateful to anyone who tells me to these specific embodiments having at least some resemblance to the parsed butterfly ...This will serve as a basis for transfer to inaccurate or even in a different kind of :)
Two well-respected resource (one European, and one Asian) is exactly the same in the butterfly is accurate (inaccurate not there) :)
Example:
We trust these resources in the definition of the same Antheraea rosieri (Toxopeus, 1940):
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-3/saturniidae/saturniidae_2_11.php
http: // lepidoptera.ru / taxonomy / 65559
Although the genus Antheraea (Hubner, 1819) is huge, divided into five subgenera and species in it are often highly variable in appearance ..... Somehow, in this case, the question does not arise?
And in the case of the butterfly trust these resources can not. That's what I do not understand (

27.11.2014 23:21, Irina Nikulina

I do not know whether there fourth opinions, but I read all the correspondence - and was going to write, but it is going, Peter voiced in his last comments all my thoughts) Usually, offering definition, ask the moderators to put in inaccurate when understand complex ET-species even if only one of the possible variants not found.Or not proven that it can be eliminated. It was not time, and rightly so.

27.11.2014 23:10, Peter Khramov

The genus 20 species. From them we have information to 3. We assume that the 3 most common. Our species is suitable for one of these three. But perhaps it is suitable and under some of the 17 we do not know. So, definition inaccurate. Somewhere I wrong?
And yes. If other fotami the same situation - they are too inaccurate. But the situation is not all of the tropics.Do not exaggerate.

27.11.2014 22:50, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Peter, the options on the network does not (try typing "Odontodes"), Besides from these two, who swept aside at once :)
So far, all I see is an accurate description. This approach can put in all the tropical inaccurate, because the options do not know? Or forever undefined? Sad but true (

27.11.2014 22:39, Peter Khramov

In these 3 types of sources in this way. If they are really only 3, then we know the problems. But if there are still 20 instead of 3, why you need to look only these three? If they are the most common, or that is in this spirit - then again up to a maximum of inaccurate pulls, is not it?

27.11.2014 22:31, Vasiliy Feoktistov

The fact that this "sort of way" is the two links at a fairly respected resources that I brought in my very first post :) I have now, as you can see are these types of which all but with every second problem arises becausethat rarely catches trails in their (more and more "pop" any) and ignorance of (two or three images on a good resource in this case is already very good.

27.11.2014 22:17, Peter Khramov

Basil, like it is, but as it is not so. After the images are not available for all types (if the image is determined by).

27.11.2014 22:07, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Peter, sent in inaccurate when there are specific variants (types of very similar appearance). I do not see those, though born big. Will they provided, then and will talk about the transfer to inaccurate :)

27.11.2014 22:02, Peter Khramov

Why is not discussing. I now propose to send inaccurate.

27.11.2014 21:07, Alexandr Zhakov

I also explained below :) go around. :)) No further diskussiruem all all told, each left to his own. I urge to be careful in these definitions have not had the opportunity to make sure that the seemingly 100% accurate definition, had to change. :)))

27.11.2014 20:28, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Alexander, I do not see any options. The following explains why :)
P.S. If the network has a minimum of pictures, it does not mean that the form incorrectly defined :) Especially to a minimum it is possible to trust.

27.11.2014 20:20, Alexandr Zhakov

The question of how well the form is defined and how to identify :))

23.11.2014 14:10, Vasiliy Feoktistov

Alexander the on moths of borneo given 2 types and one of them does not fit categorically.
It Odontodes seranensis: http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-14/stictopterinae/stictopterinae_5_1.php
And boldsystems three. And the same thing: the only suitable one.
And about the pictures: Well, a little help from Google images :) It's good :)
Man catches in the most wilds on a generator with DRL and nobody knows who else might be pleasant in his training camp :)

23.11.2014 13:51, Alexandr Zhakov

Kind defined by a single image in mothsofborneo.com. boldsystems.org into three images, and only one image in correspondence mothsofborneo.com. One corresponds to Odontodes seranensis, others do not understand anything. The old bolee20 species. and images of 20 species :( no options, just not found.I do not mean to that used, carried in inaccurate, and besides, that would not make categorical statements on 1-2 online sources. :))

22.11.2014 16:30, Vasiliy Feoktistov

No question: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=588678 (here, the truth is posemeystvo in Eutelidae)
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-14/stictopterinae/stictopterinae_5_2.php
And no options.