Comment -- I known I cannot vote but I would gladly choose this type of depiction. However the lighting is not good enough, considering it is a studio shot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The views "entomological" should be routine for insects, if I had another life I think I would have. I confine myself to proposed from time to time as and in my meetings. These pictures should be there reference which does not exclude any of the scenes "in vivo" and a label image value with a reduced scope.
Comment Without doubt, this one beats the other three quality-wise by a good margin. However, both, images of living animals in natural habitat and pictures of prepared specimens, are valuable in their own way. I'm not sure how to put this in subscopes and what the generic scope should refer to. --Quartl (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In principle, I think that this kind of view, if technically better (it's the case here IMO), must be the reference for an encyclopedical use. As amateur, if I want to know how an insect is really made (anatomy), I'll look for an "entomological" view like this one. That's the reason of my support, but it is only the poor opinion of a non-specialist !!--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
