Photo #58761: Endotricha valentis

19.07.2016 11:18, Yuri Semejkin

Alexander ! It doesn't suit me either, and I hope so for you as a moderator and as a punctual person, too. 20-25 % doubt is a lot.Especially when it comes to several similar types. It is one thing when it comes simply to the complexity of the definition and there is a desire to communicate with the person who described the view and when after that it is clear that some differences still exist and you can determine visually. But here, too, for example, in the case of moths, I had isolated cases when the person who was engaged in them refused to give a picture of the view. And other things when we are talking about a whole group, when even the person who described them does not want to . you can tell something from the picture and it's not just a matter of caution. And in general , Alexander, I do not understand what is wrong with the genus for certain reasons not brought to the species. On the contrary, it attracts attention, perhaps for this reason someone will take care of it. Earlier Kurentsov, and now other entomologists continue to study. There will be information, there will be a view ; if there is no information , then there is no need to do essays. We've already talked about this in Yandex. Mail. ( about possible definitions). There is a forum on the site and everyone is silent and I am 100 % sure that there is no one today who could give arguments talking about a specific type. Specifically for this genus.

19.07.2016 9:32, Alexandr Zhakov

Yuri, many ekstraklass specialists value their image very much and do not want to make mistakes when determining from photos. They need to be cooked, held in their hands to see the size, shades of color, pubescence and much more, and then with a high degree of probability, they can guarantee the definition. And the possibility of 75-95% correctness does not suit them.:)

19.07.2016 4:15, Yuri Semejkin

I talked to the author who gave the description of the species. Here's the verdict. Almost all species ( including this one) of this genus are determined or confirmed by the structure of the genitals. So that it should be in not exactly defined ones. And yet, it is not so rare that the possibility of visual accurate determination is not excluded over time. But this is my speculation...And as for today, there is not even 1 person who guarantees visual accuracy of the definition.

17.07.2016 10:27, Yuri Semejkin

Put while the view in not exact, there are doubts. If I can overcome them, I'll edit them in the future.