Photo #42590: Ctenoplusia agnata

18.09.2015 14:53, Yuri Semejkin

Mats also identified as Ctenoplusia agnata

11.09.2015 19:21, Peter Khramov Corrected data.

Autographa nigrisigna / Yuri Semejkin → Ctenoplusia agnata / Irina Nikulina.

11.09.2015 19:12, Yuri Semejkin

Carry. . Kohl majority. And then I will add the opinion of specialists, but probably it will be the same.

11.09.2015 19:09, Peter Khramov

Maybe it has to move, just one more opinion for? In extreme cases, it will be possible to deploy. Even now it is not hanging in uncertain.

11.09.2015 13:35, Oleg Pekarsky

It Ctenoplusia agnata.

11.09.2015 7:07, Alexandr Zhakov

Well, Yuri, asked more proof does not hurt, but I can think of at least five signs, the differences between the two species that favor Ctenoplusia agnata. But just say, other species I had not considered. Maybe something third :)

11.09.2015 1:16, Yuri Semejkin

Alexander ! Let's do so. I threw this butterfly Kononenko, but it is not there. If he does not appear, in the coming days I will send mats. (As soon as he finished a vacation). I think after 5 days the answer would be, and then determine where she was to be.

10.09.2015 22:05, Alexandr Zhakov

Butterfly pretty fresh. Closely watched two types. First, in literature Kononenko "Scoops of Siberia" and the catalog Witt "Scoops Palearctic". Then the Internet. Everything speaks in favor Ctenoplusia agnata, and online http://catocala.narod.ru/noc307.html same error is shown Ctenoplusia agnata, and written Autographa nigrisigna. We will not multiply the error.Yuri, if you're looking at this site, it is identified correctly, this is the same butterfly, just on the site, in my opinion, it is not defined correctly.

02.09.2015 18:23, Yuri Semejkin

I wish somebody else takes a look at it.

02.09.2015 18:20, Irina Nikulina

In my opinion, it is a shabby Ctenoplusia agnata http://www.jpmoth.org/~dmoth/80_Noctuidae/10Plusiinae/4163%20Ctenoplusia%20agnata/Ctenoplusia%20agnata.htm