Open main menu

Example index page to ID-requests/discussions on File talk pagesEdit

This introduction would be replaced with a short general note on how to contribute to discussions, such as that edits made to the talk pages will be reflected here as the text here is merely embedded from the talk pages.

Do not edit this page, except to add a new request and please add new requests at the top


 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID Please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


File talk:LarvaInsecta.JPG


 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID disputed - your opinion please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


Server error - unable to edit image page: Certainly not Hemerobius stigma Stephens, 1836 (this is(/was?) the ID on the original image on bugwood) but rather some species of Micromus, imho probably M. variolosus but I'm no good with the Nearctic fauna. Confirmation required. Bugwood contacted to correct there aswell. Pudding4brains (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID disputed - your opinion please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


In my opinion this can't be Forficula auricularia, because the hindwings are not visible. It should be a female of Apterygida media. --Mbc 07:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this in the german wikipedia. It indeed is a subadult female of Forficula auriculata. --Mbc 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Apterygida media - adult female!Edit

IMHO Mbc was right about questioning the ID on this image as it indeed shows an adult female Apterygida media, my corrections to the image description and categorization however were reverted and I'm not going to start an edit war over it.

I will now add a notice to alert users that the ID is questionable at the very least and will categorize the image in both Forficula and Apterygida - silly as this may seem, to at least enable users looking for images of Apeterygida media to find this excellent image of an adult female.

I hope these changes will be respected now.

For reference:

  • Original ID on German wikipedia here: Archiv04
  • Discussion initialized by Mbc here: Archiv07
  • "Discussion" on the author's talk page here

Translated overview:

  • Doc Taxon first thought it was Apterygida, but asked around (here) and was told by someone who stated I only know Earwigs superficially (sic!) that he would have it to be Forficula auricularia, probably subadult. This was communicated back to the de.wiki as "Expert" advice.
  • The discussion following Mbc's questioning is too long to translate, but centers around questionable IDing characters (without source reference).
  • IMO the main point is missed. The structure/surface of the forewings clearly makes this an adult and hence the hind wings are way too short for F. auricularia. Even the (late instar) nymphs of F. auricularia have longer hindwings as illustrated in this image (wrongly ID's as A. media at the moment). With a close look at the structure of the wings (or wing capsules) the two are really not that hard to tell apart. Further arguments pro A. media for the image discussed her would be the clear orange-reddish colour, the setae on the body and the length and shape of the cerci.

I will not spend more time on this, name the image as you please, 'nough said. Pudding4brains (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID Please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


File talk:Ginster232.JPG


 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID disputed - your opinion please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


  • @Pudding4brains: I'm not a specialist... I've fulfilled your request and I've renamed this file -- but I'm hesitating now... Are you absolutely sure the rename is well done? Can you describe the differences with those two species? Wieralee (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Howdy,
Many, many Cantharidae on Commons carry wrong names and many photos cannot be ID'd reliably to species. Obviously, naming images of Cantharidae for usage on wikipedia projects should be done with more care and many images should be placed in a "uncertain" category or in some dual-species category or some such.
This is especially true for the original ID on this image (Cantharis obscura): Even if this would have been a lookalike (which it isn't) the ID would have been near impossible as obscura, paradoxa & liburnica are almost impossible to ID from photo.
In this case however it is easy, as it is fusca :o) The pattern on the pronotum of fusca is very variable. The black spot is always situated at the front of the pronotum, but it can easily extend all the way to the back (as it does here). In this case the specimen is indeed often confused with obscura/paradoxa, but the total habitus is quite different, the sides of the pronotum are less sharply defined and more reddish-orange (white/yellowish-orange on the others), but most easily separated by the first antennal segments that are red on fusca and black above on the others. Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID disputed - your opinion please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


Just stumbled on this animal again, so I'll add some links for future reference ...

As previously noted in the edit history of the file, some doubt had been raised on the identity of this specimen. Some links to the relevant discussions and examples of other similar specimen can be found here:

All this should be considered mainly as 'historical reference'. Personally I would still consider this to probabaly/possibly be a subadult O. dinaricus or at the very least keep an open mind to that. That said, I have absolutely no problem with accepting the ID by Christian Komposch (Austrian expert in Harvestmen) as authorative, so if he says it's canestrinii than that's it. Just adding this so that previous discussions about the identity of this animal can be easily retreived from this location as well. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 
ID-discussion on talk page

ID disputed - your opinion please?Edit

Edit this File's talk page to contribute to this discussion


Howdy / To who it may concern:

Yesterday I requested a rename on this file (per this edit) as imho the ID is incorrect. Today I see that the rename request is rolled back with a question to explain.

So: I can see where the original ID "came from" as the pterostigma seems to have only one cross vein. This is a "textbook" character for R. ophiopsis, so anyone looking at the "quick and dirty" way to ID this animal would go something like: "Germany (limiting the selection of available species); Black ptero with one cross vein => must be R. ophiopsis". In fact, I've seen this image many times before and maybe didn't take time to look closer, or just quickly glanced at the ptero too, or whatever, but anyway - no alarm bells went off.

On closer inspection however there is no way that this is ophiopsis. Wing veination in Snakeflies is quite variable and prone to aberrations, but will generally stick to "patterns at large". One typical aberration is in the cross veins of the pterostigma. Species that are documented as "having 1 cross vein" often have two and the Phaeostigmas with two cross veins sometimes have one, or more often (as in this particular case!!) one cross vein that forks inside the ptero. So the configuration of the ptero is not a 100% reliable character. Even so, this expression (one forked cross vein in ptero) is quite common on Phaeostigma, especially on major. More importantly however, one should look at the big picture of the total wing veination. The most striking feature here is that the 1st discoidal cel (the cel directly under the pterostigma (or in this case, as the wings are folded over the body, directly "above" the pterostigma) is located centrally above the ptero on Raphidia and usually shorter and "higher" than here, whereas on the German Phaeostigmas it is stongly shifted basally and much wider and lower. Exactly as seen here. Other than that on both Phaeostigma the wing veination is much "richer" than on Raphidia. This is most notable in the wing tip and on the hind edge of the wing (top edge in image). Here almost all veins that lead to the edge will be forked on Phaeostigma and unforked on Raphidia. This is even more notable on Phaeostigma notata (very "crowded" wing veination), but the difference between R.ophiopsis and this here P.major is clear and evident still. As another quick & dirty indicator one may count the cross veins in the costal area: Roughly under 10 for R.ophiopsis, about 10-12 for major, 12+ for notata (not bullet proof, but very indicative). That's all I have time for now. Gotto run. Pudding4brains (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)