User talk:LamBoet

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have made a rename request. Kenraiz (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. Correcting mis-identified species is a really helpful activity, as we all make mistakes. However, it is always best to suggest a rename rather than just edit it yourself! You have said that my image is a large skipper, and it is early in the season, but there are no defining chequered marks on the underside and the antennae are not those of the large skipper, hence I identified it as an early small skipper. What have I missed? Charles (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Charlesjsharp: , thank you for coming here! Your Large Skipper was a tricky one, because it indeed doesn't have the usual markings on the hindwing. What gives it away is partly the general colour, partly the wing shape: you can see that the forewing is longer and pointier than on Thymelicus species. About the antennae, this is not the right angle to see the hooked tip, but you can almost see it on the background antenna. I hope this helps. Sorry I didn't come to talk to you directly, but not many people answer when I do, and there are hundreds of such edits to make :-) --LamBoet (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hi LamBoet, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took this ages ago before I was an enthusiast so someone else identified for me and it's obviously wrong! Will change.Charles (talk)

Hallo, du hast bei https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pieridae-20130811-5.jpg bzw. den anderen Fotos des Exemplars statt Colias sareptensis nun Colias croceus eingetragen. Ich kann das schlecht beurteilen, aber was sind die Gründe dafür, dass es Colias croceus ist? --Speifensender (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Speifensender: Das kann man an der orangengelben Farbe der Oberseite und Vorderflügelunterseite erkennen: in Deutschland ist nur C. croceus so getönt, dagegen ist C. sareptensis (= C. alfacariensis) entweder hellgelb (Männchen) oder weißlich (Weibchen). Ein anderes Merkmal ist die bei C. croceus breitere Randbinde. VG.--LamBoet (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für die schnelle und fundierte Antwort. Ja, die Seiten vom Lepiforum sind eine große Hilfe! Ich habe gesehen, du bist "Dateiverschieber". Wäre es möglich, die Dateien umzubenennen? Ich kann es aber auch selbst beantragen. --Speifensender (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Speifensender: Ja, natürlich. Wäre "Colias-crocea-20130811-*.jpg" OK ?--LamBoet (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ist OK. Vielen Dank! --Speifensender (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
About Category:Hesperiidae, I have no preferences about taxonomy.
But I like to provide sources.
Do you have a website or a book reference to enforce Category:Papilionoidea ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liné1: , you can quote the online database Fauna europaea (at this page). This change of superfamily is quite recent, it was proposed in this paper and hasn't been propagated to many databases yet, so I suppose it doesn't hurt to assign Category:Hesperiidae to both Category:Papilionoidea and Category:Hesperioidea for the moment.--LamBoet (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I have added them (I did not know how to call the publication, its full name beeing too long).

As you say, we can perfectly add both categories.

I created {{Taxoconflict}} exactly for that kind of cases.

We will come back in a few year and it will change again.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thank you :)--LamBoet (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet,

Well I'm not sure if is dido, but ammong them/the genus, this sp. is the most common in captivity. At least according to some internet pages. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenesFeri: I see, but please don't put any species name if you are not sure. It is much better to just have a solid genus-level identification, rather than an uncertain species-level one. So, here I would recommend to stay with 'Philaethria sp.' Best regards. --LamBoet (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will do that. Than can you renameit to the previous name? DenesFeri (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just did it, thanks.--LamBoet (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also. DenesFeri (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for noticing my mistake. I have changed the body of text, but I have problem in renaming the file. I just font know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeniacus (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again. I'll keep misidentifying a few to keep you on your toes!! Charles (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moin moin! AWB freigeschaltet! Du kannst, falls gewuenscht, diese Vorlage auf Deiner Userpage einsetzten: {{User AutoWikiBrowser}} --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je te remercie pour toutes tes interventions (ici comme ailleurs en wf) qui rattrape les dérapages de mes interventions souvent emballées... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pas de problème, merci à toi pour ces excellentes photos et articles :-) --LamBoet (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Figyelmeztetésedet és tanácsaidat köszönöm! KeFe * Talk 14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, today I uploaded a number of new images of Montegrotto Terme and I read your alert on File:Butterfly Close-up (478889237).jpg. I am sufficiently sure that all those images of exotic animals and tropical butterflies have been taken in the "Butterfly Arc" (or Casa delle Farfalle e Bosco delle Fate) I've been to at least a couple of times. ;-)--Threecharlie (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Threecharlie: thank you for confirming this :-), I have just updated the description accordingly. The reason I had put this sentence is that this image had wrongfully ended up in subcategories of "Lepidoptera of Italy", which had me confused. --LamBoet (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a linguistic problem; in Italian we say in Italia (in Italy) for something that is in the national territory in this moment but it may not have its origin in Italy. For example, we were forced to add a disclaimer to warn those who do the dirty work that exist Italian cultural heritage hosted museums that are not in the territory of origin, trivially a painting of the Renaissance collection in a US museum is a painting in the United States but from Italy (see Category:Art in Naples). In the past there have been misunderstandings for categorization with in, from and of, and there are those who insist on imposing of categories instead in cat. If I photograph a macaw parrot in Italy, because some specimens bred in captivity they fled forming a colony, parrot is in Italy although it is not native of Italy. ;-).--Threecharlie (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of this, but in this case the user who categorized the picture is not the uploader, so he may have just followed the GPS coordinates thinking it was an indigenous insect. Anyway - not important as long as things are clear now :-) --LamBoet (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. If this is tumbleweed flowering due to the wet desert winter, OK. If not, what is it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tumbleweed_Blooming.jpg Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pocketthis: sorry but I can't help you here, I don't know anything about tumbleweeds... :-) --LamBoet (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks...I don't know what made me think you were also a plant expert. Sorry to bother you. I'll track down a weed lover and get this figured out. :-) Pocketthis (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Category Barnstar
		Identifying particular species in an image can take a lot of research or subject-specific expertise. When an image is only as valuable as it is findable, identification and categorization are particularly valuable contributions. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this and others. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for informing me of this. I have changed the categories and asked for a re-naming of the file. Kolforn (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the identification and correcting Vanessa cardui - Israel.jpg Eitan f (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. Merci pour votre identification. J'ai corrigé la page, la catégorie, et demandé le renommage du fichier.--MirandaAdramin (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour ces nouvelles identifications. J'ai corrigé les pages pour File:Moiré Sylvicole Portrait.jpg et File:Moiré Sylvicole Profil.jpg et demandé à les renommer. J'ai également corrigé les catégories et la description pour File:Tortue Sol.jpg / File:Tortue Close Up.jpg. J'en ai profité pour uploader une photo de la face ventrale (File:Tortue Ventrale.jpg). J'aurais une question : sans voir cette face ventrale, effectivement très différente, comment les distinguez-vous ? Et pourquoi les deux papillons n'appartiennent pas à la même famille ? Décidément, ce monde des petites bêtes est bien compliqué ! ;-) --MirandaAdramin (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @MirandaAdramin: entre autres petites différences, la Grande tortue a une tache noire de plus à chaque aile antérieure, et la Petite tortue a le fond d'un rouge plus vif, plus uniforme. Les deux papillons appartiennent à la même famille : celle des Nymphalidae. Ou peut-être vouliez-vous dire : pourquoi n'appartiennent-ils pas au même genre ? --LamBoet (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @LamBoet: . Merci pour ces explications. Effectivement, je pensais au genre, différent, qui fait donc partie de la même famille. N'étant pas biologiste pour deux sous, mes tentatives d'identification se font en confrontant laborieusement plusieurs clichés... À ce propos, j'en ai un qui m'a occupée longuement hier : File:Géomètre.jpg. J'ai supposé qu'il s'agissait d'un géomètre (famille) et l'ai rangé dans le genre des Larentiinae non identifiés... Ai-je bon ? Merci. --MirandaAdramin (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MirandaAdramin: c'est vrai que les genres Nymphalis et Aglais se ressemblent, et ils sont étroitement apparentés (voir les articles wikipédia en lien). Confronter laborieusement des clichés est souvent une bonne méthode d'apprentissage ;-) et des sites comme celui-ci (espèces françaises) ou celui-là (espèces européennes) peuvent vous y aider. Et ce forum est probablement le meilleur endroit pour demander de l'aide.

Votre géomètre est abîmé mais identifiable ; il ne fait pas partie des Larentiinae mais des Ennominae (qui sont des sous-familles, pas des genres). Je vous suggère de chercher la bonne espèce par ici.--LamBoet (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour ces infos. Une bonne chose, je cherchais déjà sur le bon site ! --MirandaAdramin (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für die Bestimmung!--Rosa-Maria Rinkl (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think, you know better? You don't. Visaswises (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Vielen Dank...
	...für deine Bestimmungen bei den Faltern! C.Löser (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you know, I have taken many pictures of rare butterflies in the Balkans and you have challenged many identifications. I am sure many of the errors will be mine, but I have to write to my guide asking for his confirmations. I have already given you his proseffional qualifications, but he will wnat to know yours. Can you let me have details of your own experience in the field, and professional expertise in the field of Balkan butterflies, particularly the rare species (ringlets and graylings) that we need to discuss. Many thanks. Charles (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, thanks for coming here! No, I will not give you “professional qualifications”, first because I am not a professional, and second because I don't want to encourage your misconception that identification should primarily be delivered by some authority. I have found this to be a classic way of accumulating mistakes. Lepidoptera identification is instead something that anyone can learn through patient observation and comparison (literature, web iconography, and web forums have become very powerfool tools for this).

In this spirit, I am quite surprised that you haven't seemed to try to make your own opinion about my corrections. This would be much more interesting and rewarding for you than a game of arguments from authority. I took the time to give ID criteria to guide you, and I am happy to help more.

Coming back to your original question, I do have a lot of experience, but I don't think my recent corrections are particularly controversial, or even Balkan-specific. Don't worry, if your correspondent is an identification expert, he will agree with them, as would any experienced European lepidopterist, and as will you probably when you take a closer look :-) Have a nice day. --LamBoet (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right on most, if not all, your opinions, but there is no point me second-guessing id when I will be getting coeections/validation in due course. I normally due my own identification and validation and so this was a new experience for me, having an expert in the field. Nothing wrong with you being an amateur, but I wanted to check. Thanks. Charles (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the correction. I uploaded similar photos:

File:Pararge aegeria - Galicia - 01.jpg
File:Pararge aegeria - Galicia - 02.jpg
File:Pararge aegeria - Galicia - 03.jpg
File:Pararge aegeria - Galicia - 05.jpg

Are the also Maniola jurtina? Regards. --Xosema (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. 3 and 5 are Maniola jurtina, nb. 1 and 2 are Pararge aegeria.--LamBoet (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet!

First of all, thank you for add two useful categories to Vanessa atalanta sipping a flower in garden of Montreal.webm. Then, I want to let you know that I am going to keep you in mind to when I have some photograph of a lepidoptera.

Do you know about plants species and another insects too? I will be very happy to know it because it could be very useful for future photo uploads that I will make. I am going to mention to Santamarcanda because I know that she will be happy to meet you!

Thank you again!

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanhercaz: Thanks :-) Unfortunately I am probably not able to help with plants or other insects. Best regards --LamBoet (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For letting me know the species of the butterfly and correcting me. --Saisumanth Javvaji (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be clear, I did not identify a particular species. But I agree that Euploea core looks right. --LamBoet (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet and thank you for your help. --Babu (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Coluld this File:Geometrinae - Transylvania 1.jpg be Hemistola chrysoprasaria? Look an example; File:Hemistola chrysoprasaria01.jpg. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenesFeri: , I don't think so, the shapes of white lines are different, in particular on the forewing. I think your moth is a Chlorissa: either C. viridata or C. cloraria, but these two species are very similar and can probably not be distinguished from a picture. --LamBoet (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks anyway. DenesFeri (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's me again,

According to the descriptions and flight period, I believe that this animal is rather C. viridata. Your opinion? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenesFeri: , I am really not convinced. Looking at these 2 pages [viridata / cloraria] I can't find any solid differences in wing pattern between the two species (even the suggested white/red coastal line criterion doesn't seem to hold). Regarding the flight period, both pages have pictures near July 26.--LamBoet (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Than this one remain unknown species. DenesFeri (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, sir!

I am new to this whole Wikimedia commons part (and only took part of it, because of the science photo competition), so I may have misunderstood your reasons behind adding Category: Unidentified caterpillars, but it is a picture of Ematurga atomaria (Linnaeus, 1758).

--DonaldMcPart (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DonaldMcPart: , thanks for asking; it looks like at that time I didn't notice the description text and put the picture in that category to permit later identification. But since you are sure of its identity, I have now categorized the picture in Category:Ematurga atomaria and Category:Geometridae (caterpillar) :-)

May I suggest that you also indicate the geographical origin of the picture? --LamBoet (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I saw you on my watchlist doing high-precision work with categories of butterfly photos. Thanks for the good work. Pine✉ 05:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think the ritual could be considered like sex

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Lydus_trimaculatus_italicus&type=revision&diff=292661314&oldid=206383959&diffmode=source

Hi @Assianir: yes, it is, but such a category only has to be added to the picture, not to the species category, which could contain other pictures. --LamBoet (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, now i understand. thanks Assianir (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un grand merci; les papillons ne sont pas mon fort...Je corrige immédiatement. Pace è salute.--philmarin (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A l'aide! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:(unidentified)_Pieridae-Alb-1.jpg. Merci.--philmarin (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Philmarin: je pense qu'il s'agit de Pieris rapae. --LamBoet (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-bonjour : Un grand merci.--philmarin (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt kein Butterfly House im Botanischen Garten!

Die ersten drei Bilder sind vom Parkplatz und die drei anderen Bilder sind von Category:Ausstellung lebender tropischer Schmetterlinge im Botanischen Garten Wuppertal 2014. Ich habe die letzten drei Bilder (war eine andere Kamera) nur noch nicht in die richtige Kategorie verschoben. --Atamari (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Atamari: , danke für den Hinweis, ich habe die Bilder umkategorisiert.

Doch braucht Category:Ausstellung lebender tropischer Schmetterlinge im Botanischen Garten Wuppertal ein bisschen Übersetzung und Kategorisierung. Handelt es sich um eine vorläufige oder ständige Ausstellung?

Hinsichtlich der ersten drei Bilder: meinst du, dass dieser Falter draussen/freilebend war? (Es ist ein exotischer Falter, also kommt er sicher von der Ausstellung.) --LamBoet (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Es war eine temporäre Ausstellung, ca. 1 Monat lang. Dazu wurde das "normale" Gewächshaus benutzt. Meistens wurde das jährlich wiederholt. Vielleicht habe ich irgendwo eine Aufstellung der rund 10 Arten, ich weiß jetzt aber nicht wo und bin unsicher ob jedes Jahr dieselben Arten zu sehen waren.

Von dem einen Exemplar auf dem Parkplatz vermute ich stark, dass es entwischt ist und kein heimischer Schmetterling war. Die Entfernung zum Gewächshaus beträgt rund 50 Meter. --Atamari (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das Fotografieren ist unerwartet schwierig gewesen. Einmal beschlug die Linse des Objektivs stark im Gewächshaus durch die Luftfeuchtigkeit, da war das Fotografieren mit dem Handy einfacher - da es zuvor in der Hosentasche war. Und die Schmetterlinge flatterten recht aufgeregt hin und her.

--Atamari (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dieses Bild hilft bei der Bestimmung einiger Bilder. --Atamari (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Ich habe die Kategorien englisch umbenannt (um Commons-Regeln einzuhalten) und die Bilder soweit möglich in taxonomische Kategorien eingereiht. --LamBoet (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schau mal hier

• Bananenfalter, Königs-Schwalbenschwanz, Weiße Baumnymphe --Atamari (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ich tue Zootier-Kategorien immer auch in die Kategorie für Tiere des Ortes, weil der unbedarfte Nutzer sie dort suchen wird, achte aber darauf, daß die Zootiere nie einzeln in der Mutterkategorie zu finden sind, da es sich ja nicht um einheimische Tiere handelt. Daher ist die Category:Animals of Mainau eine angemessene Muttergategrie für Category:Lepidoptera in Butterfly house (Mainau). Ähnlich verfahre ich mit Museumskategorien und Museumsexemplaren von Tieren, wobei es sinnvoll ist Museumsexemplarwe an dem ort einzusortzuieren, wo sie gesammelt wurden. --Kersti (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Kersti Nebelsiek, danke für deine Nachricht, aber aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht scheint es mir sinnvoller, die Kategorien für freilebende (nicht zwangsläufig einheimische) und gefangene Tiere nicht zu vermischen (siehe z.B. die getrennten Category:Lepidoptera by country und Category:Lepidoptera in zoos by country). Damit es immerhin Links zwischen den beiden Strukturen gibt, benutze ich die “Cat see also” Vorlage: zum Beispiel hatte ich das schon in Category:Animals of Mainau getan, sodass Category:Lepidoptera in Butterfly house (Mainau) dort schon sichtbar war. Was meinst du dazu? --LamBoet (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zunächst ist mir unklar, warum es wissenschaftlicher sein sollte, das zu trennen, schließlich gibt es alle Übergänge zwischen, freiliebendem einheimischen Wildtier, entlaufenem Heim- oder Zootier, verwilderten nicht einheimischen Tier, eingebürgertem Tier, Haustier, verwildertem Haustier, etc. pp. Ich wüßte nicht wie man da eine scharfe Grenze ziehen sollte und was durch eine solche scharfe Grenze richtiger wird. Dann finde ich auch daß die Kategorien da zu finden sein sollten, wo der Laie sie suchen würde, es sei denn, es wäre falsch. Wenn jemand eine Kategorie für Spinnen bei den Insekten einordnet, werde ich sie selbstverständlich rausschmeißen, obwohl die Häufigkeit solcher Fehleinordnungen nahelegt, anzunehmen, daß viele Laien Spinnen für Insekten halten und sich ihrer Sache dabei sicher genug sind, daß sie es nicht einmal nachschauen. Da es aber falsch ist landet es in der Kategorie für Gliederfüßer. Dagegen ist ein Tier aus einem Berliner Zoo durchaus ein Tier das - als Individuum - in Berlin zuhause ist, auch wenn die Art ganz woanders heimisch ist und ich sehe deshalb nicht, warum man die Kategorie für die Zootiere nicht in die Kategorie für die Berliner tiere einsortieren sollte. --Kersti (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Kersti Nebelsiek. Wissenschaftlich ist die Grenze ziemlich scharf. Mit freilebenden Tieren meine ich die örtliche Fauna, i. e. alle Arten, die man gewöhnlich in faunistische Bestandsaufnahmen und Datenbanken aufzählt. Anders gesagt, Arten, die sich frei fortpflanzen, seien sie einheimisch, eingebürgert oder verwildert. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt stellen Commons-Dateien freilebender Tiere wissenschaftlichen Rohstoff dar, während Dateien von Haustiere et Zootiere sind es natürlich nicht.

Dann gibt es die subjektivere Frage des praktischen Aspekts der Commons-Kategorisierung. Aus den obigen Gründen deute ich das “of” in “[Animal] of [Place]” als ein “from”, während du hier ein “in” siehst. Ich verstehe, dass beide Einordnungsstrategien vertretbar sind, aber ich finde die geographische Kategorisierung gefangener Tiere relativ unnötig, und ihre Mischung mit freilebenden Tieren jedenfalls verwirrend… --LamBoet (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mir ist gerade aufgefallen, daß hier der Beitrag bei mir untergegangen ist. Fauna ist nicht Teil des Kategoriennamens.

Eine klare Trennung zwischen freilebenden Tieren und gefangenen Tieren ist ja gegeben, wenn man streng darauf achtet, daß alle Zootiere auch wirklich in der Zookategorie landen und alle Haustiere in den entsprechenden Haustierkategorien. Genau das funktioniert aber dann am Besten wenn die Kategorie für die Zootiere in der allgemeinen Tierkategorie zu finden ist, so daß der Laie sieht: "Da ist ja eine noch richtigere Kategorie!" Wenn die Zootierkategorien von Berlin sich aber nicht in der allgemeinen Tierkategorie ist findet der Laie der seine Zoobilder einordnen will und zufälligerweise mit dem Stichwort Tiere und nicht mit Stichwort Zoo anfängt zu suchen letztlich die Zootierkategorie nicht und ordnen sie häufiger in die Tiere von Berlin ein. Das sehe ich nämlich regelmäßig so und will es möglichst nicht von Hand einzeln nachsortieren müssen. Daß aber die Haus- und Zootiere kein wissenschaftliches Forschungsgebiet wären, halte ich dann aber doch für ein Gerücht. Sie werden nur in anderen Kontexten erforscht. --Kersti (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LamBoet

Are you sure? Category:Aphantopus hyperantus on flowers on File:Flor.juli.2018 2.jpg

The butterfly seem to be File:Borboleta.juli.2018.jpg

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chris.urs-o: Yes, there are 2 Aphantopus hyperantus on File:Flor.juli.2018 2.jpg: one in the middle and one on the right. I just noticed that there is a 3rd butterfly on the left, perhaps a Brenthis. The butterfly of File:Borboleta.juli.2018.jpg is another species: a Melitaea sp., but I am not sure which one. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry, internet was down :( --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet, I took some photo's of butterflies: [1] and [2]. Maybe you can recognize some. Rudolphous (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rudolphous: for the Dutch ones, certainly (I updated the Maniola jurtina), but for the exotic ones, I can rarely reach species level :-) --LamBoet (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you updates! Rudolphous (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Je sais maintenant pourquoi j'ai mal au dos: je dois m'incliner devant tant de patience avec les novices.

Donc après avoir corrigé ma dernière ID, j'ai des doutes sur celle du fichier que je luis avais associé .
Merci de me rassurer !
--Daniel Villafruela (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Daniel VILLAFRUELA, oui, c'est bon, celui-là est bien un mâle de Thymelicus sylvestris : dessus fauve sans taches claires, et avec une longue ligne androconiale :-) --LamBoet (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erstmal vielen Dank für Deine geduldige Hilfe, Deine Zuordnungen und Deine Korrekturen. Danke Dir! Dann eine Bitte: Kannst Du hier [[3]] hineinschauen, unter Überfamilie Noctuoidea gibt es dort keine Erebidae. Liebe Grüße --Christian Pirkl (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Christian Pirkl, gern geschehen!

Ja, die Systematik der Noctuoidea wurde vor ca. 10 Jahren tief verändert (die bisherigen Arctiidae und Lymantriidae und einige der bisherigen Noctuidae wurden in die neue Erebidae-Familie gestellt), und in dieser Hinsicht ist die deutsche Wikipedia noch nicht aktualisiert worden. Dafür sollten viele Artikel bearbeitet werden und ich möchte das lieber nicht selber machen... --LamBoet (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das verstehe ich gut. Ich mach es auch nicht weil ich bin kein Lepidopterologe (aber Neuling). Vielleicht macht es Vladimir Nabokov. Liebe Grüße--Christian Pirkl (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, I am not familiar with the Categorization of butterflies. However, with files like File:Birds and All Nature 1898-08 12 various.ogg‎ and File:Birds and All Nature 1898-07 11 various.ogg‎ it should be somewhere there. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&curid=1894972&diff=312192248&oldid=312189602 <-- you simply removed it from there.

As the content of the file is about butterflies, it should be somewhere there.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sorry about this, that was an accidental Cat-a-lot. I tentatively put them in Category:Audio files of Lepidoptera. --LamBoet (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To explain my removal - the category seemed too general to me, and the picture was already well-categorized. On the second thought, it's probably valid alright. So thanks for the revert. --GeXeS (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks LamBoet. Have now rquested a re-name move of the file and changed the information in the file and the category! Kolforn (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet,

Thank you for the identifications! And could this - File:Buttefly-20140820.jpg - be a Graphium agamemnon? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenesFeri, yes I suppose that this is it, but I am not very familiar with this genus, so I don't know if there are other similar species. --LamBoet (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ok thanks! It's more than nothing. DenesFeri (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lamboet, The Category:Geometridae of the United Kingdom has almost 2000 photo's at the moment. Shall I split this into Wales, Scotland, England, Nothern Ireland? Or is another splitting method desired? Rudolphous (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rudolphous: , yes this is the logical next step, but I am not sure that it will help, since most of these pictures seem to come from only 2 or 3 places in England, which means that you would have to split even further.

I see that you like to do a lot of this kind of cross-category splitting, but in many cases it doesn't seem so urgent to me, because it doesn't create any new information and it creates a lot of near-empty categories... --LamBoet (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I've replaced the mistaken photo.Eitan f (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ps The other one was Pseudophilotes vicrama. Thank you again. Eitan f (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eitan f: thank you; by the way, the current valid name for Chilades trochylus is Freyeria trochylus, so I have renamed the category accordingly. --LamBoet (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at these two files?

File:Falter4 - 2018-07-19.webm

File:Lycaenidae - 2018-07-19.webm

Thanks in advance. Greetings, --Pristurus (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pristurus, the first one is Pyrausta aerealis, and the second one is a male of Lycaena tityrus subalpina :-)

Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup, besten Dank! --Pristurus (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou.I will change the page and add a new determination label to the specimen. Best regards Notafly (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for uploading photos to Commons via the Commons Android app! :) We (the developers of the app) have recently submitted a Project Grant proposal for the app, detailing our plans for the app in 2019. As a user of the app, we would love to hear your thoughts on it, if you have the time.

Cheers, Misaochan (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again; sorry about that. We had misread recent file changes that involved the app, and erroneously messaged a few people who had edited images uploaded via the app, but were not the uploader. Apologies for the spam. :) Misaochan (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I do not know about butterflies. I rewrote the name that was on the plate. Maybe she was wrong. Greetings. MOs810 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The description is not mine. The plaque hangs in the museum. I trusted specialists. MOs810 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MOs810: Of course, I understand. I was just informing you in case you or the specimen's owner are interested in the information :-) --LamBoet (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LamBoet,

I found some butterflies of Hong Kong and tried to categorize some already to families. Maybe you know some others: [4] Best regards, Rudolphous (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rudolphous, yes OK, I can sort the rest of them when I have a little time. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rudolphous (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lamboet: Thanks for all your contributions. However there is a problem with the category Chrysalis. The word chrysalis applies only to the pupae of butterflies (Papilionoidea), so placing the pupae of Sphingidae, Noctuidae, Geometridae, Pyralidae and many others in the Category:Chrysalis is a big mistake. They don't belong there.

"A chrysalis (Latin chrysallis, from Greek χρυσαλλίς = chrysallís, plural: chrysalides, also known as an aurelia) or nympha is the pupal stage of butterflies." en:wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupa#Chrysalis)

I hope you find the time to help correct this problem. Thanks. --Polinizador (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polinizador, thank you for bringing this up. Actually, despite Wikipedia choosing the restrictive definition, the word "chrysalis" can also be used for pupae of Lepidoptera other than butterflies (see for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chrysalis), although I realize that this usage seems less frequent in English than in other languages. If you are worried that putting moth chrysalides in Category:Chrysalis can confuse Wikimedia Commons users, what we can do is simply rename Category:Chrysalis to Category:Lepidoptera (pupae). That would also increase the consistency with other category names. (Your attempt to have Category:Sphingidae (pupae) both under Category:Chrysalis and Category:Pupae does not really help with the problem, plus it is a case of over-categorization, as described in COM:OVERCAT.) Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Several dictionaries use your definition of chrysalis. I am more familiar with the one given by entomological dictionaries. See: Bugguide's glossary "the pupa (resting, transformative stage) of a butterfly." I agree that a good solution would be to create a "Lepidoptera pupae" category. In fact I was thinking about it already. You have more experience with creating pages and with categories. So, if you don't mind, I will let you do it. Now, you have to make the decision to follow "Coleoptera (pupa)‎" or "Diptera pupae‎" format. Sigh! Thanks and good luck. --Polinizador (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yes, three different formats are in use (pupae/(pupae)/(pupa)), this is unfortunate... --LamBoet (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted and edit you made on File:Studded Sergeant (Athyma asura idita) S.jpg. The butterfly is on a dry rock, not mud-puddling. Charles (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Looks like it has its proboscis out and is trying to suck something nevertheless :-) --LamBoet (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LamBoet,

• About this change: we are trying to remove {{Lepidoptera}}, and replace it by Taxonavigation. Could you avoid to do the contrary, please ? ;-)
• About this change: You can totally transform a category into a Category redirect, but you should keep the informations previously present on the page. (Like I did) Because we need to justify the change of classification ;-)

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liné1:

• Yes, thank you for the reminder, I have just put Taxonavigation back. I often just copy the template from an existing same-rank category and it often happens to still be {{Lepidoptera}}. Is there a plan to automatize its replacement?
• I am not so convinced here: sourcing the classification can also simply be done on the page of the valid taxon (Category:Attevidae), as it is already. No one puts such information on Wikipedia redirects, so I don't see why we should do it on Commons (which is not a taxonomic database anyway). Moreover, isn't it weird that the redirect now appears in Category:Subfamilies of Lepidoptera? --LamBoet (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I did not ask to add information in the redirect category. ;-)

Just keep the existing information.

Personally, I prefer to add also the reason of the redirect, to justify the change.

About the other contributors, my judgment would be quite bad: most of them do not provide source, nor explain what they do. When you talk to scientifics, they consider wikipedia like garbage. But I convinced some of them that the sourced page were not.

When I came on commons there was 0 source, 0 reference, 0 note. Some botanic families followed Dahlgren, other Cronquist‎, Takhtajan. But no category said what classification was followed. Same for birds. A pure shame.

That is why I added source= accessdate= classification= parameters.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course: I was not questioning the importance of sourcing, but just wondering if the redirect was the right place for it :-)

OK, I will definitely keep the existing information on redirect pages from now on. Bon week-end --LamBoet (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo LamBoet, bitte benenne keine Dateien von mir um. Wir haben eine andere Meinung bezüglich der Art und das ist zu respektieren. Wenn ich eine Umbenennung für richtig oder notwendig halte, mache ich das selber. Es ist nämlich noch mehr zu tun, als nur die Datei umzubenennen. Auch auf meinem Computer. Übrigens sind es meine Fotos und das bleiben sie auch. Ich bestimme, wie sie heißen. Nur zur Information, ich habe noch nicht entschieden, ob ich die Umbenennung so belasse. --Hockei (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Hockei, tut mir Leid, ich verstehe, dass es manchmal unangenehm ist, aber auf Wikimedia Commons kann/darf jeder Dateien bearbeiten, und ich hatte dir meine Änderungen vorher erklärt. Wenn du genauere Argumente hast, warum dieser Falter M. britomartis sein könnte, kannst du sie immer noch in der bereits gestarteten Diskussion erläutern. Bitte beachte, dass ich deine Bestimmung sowieso nicht durch M. athalia ersetzt habe, sondern vorsichtig auf Gattungsebene (Melitaea sp.) herabgestuft habe, was mit diesen Melitaea-Arten oft am vernünftigsten ist. Außerdem ist dein Bild jetzt ein "Featured picture", und deshalb wäre es besonders nicht akzeptabel, eine zweifelhafte Artbestimmung absichtlich zu behalten. VG --LamBoet (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich konnte nicht früher antworten. Sicherlich kann/darf jeder Dateien bearbeiten. Aber das bedeutet nicht, dass jeder die Arbeit anderer kaputt machen kann wie will. Und besonders auch dann nicht, wenn jemand nur eine andere Meinung hat. Leider ist es aber so, dass es Leute bei der Wikimedia gibt, die die Bildautoren am liebsten ganz entrechten wollen. Dabei sollte die Wikimedia dankbar sein, überhaupt solch hochwertige Fotos zu bekommen. Wenn du eine Datei von mir bearbeiten willst, kannst du sie unter einen anderen Namen hochladen, wie auf der Bildseite beschrieben. Wenn du so ein Schmetterlingsexperte bist, mache doch selber Fotos und lade sie hoch. Dann kannst du sie bestimmen, wie du willst. Du kannst auch mit dem Käscher herumlaufen und sie einfangen und das Geschlechtsorgang untersuchen (wobei das bei geschützten Tieren verboten ist). Alles wie du willst. Nur, lass meine Fotos in Frieden und zwinge mich nicht in Diskussionen und Arbeit. Ich mache alles in meiner Freizeit und vor allem freiwillig! Niemand kann mich zu irgendetwas zwingen und unter Druck setzen. Mich zum Beispiel erpressen meine Dateinamen zu ändern, wenn ich nicht weiter diskutiere. Im Übrigen, was jetzt aber keine Entschuldigung sein soll, sondern nur ein Hinweis, sind in Bestimmungsbüchern grundsätzlich ein gewisser Prozentsatz falsch bestimmt. Das betrifft ganz sicher auch lepiforum. Ich habe für die Artbestimmung sorgfältig geprüft und bleibe bei meiner Meinung. --Hockei (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Hockei. Deine Antwort war unnötig aggressiv, und diese Art von Diskussion interessiert mich nicht. Du bist dir schon bewusst, dass hier jeder Dateien bearbeiten darf, und ich habe schön erklärt, dass ich nur an wissenschaftlicher Genauigkeit interessiert bin. Nein, ein Foto mit falscher Artbestimmung ist für Wikimedia Commons nicht "hochwertig". Hier sollen Mediendateien vor allem einem edukativen Zweck dienen, und nicht persönlichem Stolz. Du sagst, dass du für die Bestimmung sorgfältig geprüft hast, aber du hast immer noch kein direktes Argument vorgebracht. Hier sind relevante Elemente:

• Flügelzeichnungen. Ich hoffe, dass du die Seiten des Lepiforums (1, 2, 3) schon gelesen hast, und insbesondere die fettgedruckten Warnmeldungen. Leider sehen wir hier nur die Oberseite, wobei die Postdiskal- und Submarginalregionen der Vorderflügel am informativsten sind, aber bei deinem Exemplar sind sie für keine der drei Arten typisch, wenngleich vereinbar mit (mindestens) athalia.
• Verbreitung. Laut dieser Roten Liste und dieser Webseite seien Melitaea britomartis und M. aurelia in Brandenburg leider schon ausgestorben, während M. athalia dort noch weitverbreitet ist. Deshalb ist die Bestimmung als M. britomartis sehr unwahrscheinlich, und deshalb liegt die Beweislast bei dir.

Ich habe die Bilddateien wieder umbenannt – nochmals mit "Melitaea sp.". Wenn du das immerhin weiter diskutieren willst, dann antworte bitte zum Thema Bestimmung, und bitte mit intellektueller Redlichkeit. --LamBoet (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LamBoet, the Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life prefers that Wikidata infoboxes should not be added on taxon categories that have a taxonavigation template. The Category:Hypanartia lethe has Template lepidoptera, which is a special form of taxonavigation template (just like Template coleoptera). The infobox is useful for categories, where taxonavigation is still missing. Please see also Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Wikidata Infobox and taxons. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thiotrix, yes, I am aware of the redundancy, but I have found Wikidata infoboxes to be very useful to check that the taxon is properly classified on Wikidata, so please don't remove them when they are already there. By the way, please realize that most of the links that you just added to Category:Hypanartia lethe were already automatically given by the Wikidata infobox; you are now just hardcoding them... --LamBoet (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Ganz herzlichen Dank für die Kategorisierung meines Fotos Buchsbaumzünsler.jpg, und ebenso für die guten Hinweise auf deiner Benutzerseite! Einemnet (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have noticed my attempt to identify this clearly mislabeled duo of photos (1 and 2) has not been acknowledged. Seriously, with all respect to you, more experienced lepidopterologists, I am not sure what else could that caterpillar belong to? I know about problems identifying some other Sphingidae caterpillars, but H. euphorbiae should be pretty distinctive, shoud it not? --GeXeS (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeXeS: , if it were in continental Europe I'd say there is no doubt this is indeed H. euphorbiae, but like I wrote in the edit summary, the problem here is the author didn't specify the location. Hyles caterpillars are very variable (see e.g. some forms of H. tithymali), there are about 30 species and I can't even find pictures for all of them. But if nevertheless you know the location and/or are really sure, by all means revert my edits. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks! No, I don't know anything beyond the info already provided by the uploader, I was just curious if the caterpillar could really belong to another species - and as you just said, it could. I am content with that explanation. (Still, though, the names of those files are definitely not correct.) --GeXeS (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: so I just changed the file names to the genus name to avoid confusion. --LamBoet (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lamboet, Maybe you know some of families of the butterflies in this category [5]. Kind regards, Rudolphous (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rudolphous: , yes, I just categorized a few, and I will try again later. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LamBoet! No hurry, take your time. Rudolphous (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lamboet! Am I right, that these photos File:Plusia CF9A0962 Goldeule.jpg; File:Plusia CF9A0951 Goldeule.jpg; File:Plusia CF9A0947 Goldeule.jpg don't show Plusia but Chrysodeixis chalcites? Thanx for helping! best regards --Christian Pirkl (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Christian Pirkl, yes indeed: Chrysodeixis chalcites :-) Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Dir --Christian Pirkl (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thenk You for correcting of incorrect name of Nymphalid. I want to ask help in one little Lepidoptera ID. Would You help me? Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 21:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AfroBrazilian: of course, I am happy to help if I can. What is it? --LamBoet (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to send my picture to Your e-mail, becours it is not in wikimedia. My mail is AfroBrazilian@inbox.lv , send me mail and I will send to You pic to ID. Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 21:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I don't want upload file without known specific name, I don't like rename my pics. If You can help me send me message to my e-mail with any word. If You afraid, or You just don't want to send me message than nothing. Thenks to agree! Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AfroBrazilian: I'd rather keep my discussions here on Commons, but if you don't want to upload the file yet, you can also just post an external link to it (flickr, etc.) Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LamBoet: ist hier die Zuordnung Eurema messalina richtig? liebe Grüße --Christian Pirkl (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Christian Pirkl: ich kenne diese Art persönlich nicht, aber beim Anblick dieser und jener Seite erscheint mir Eurema messalina (= Pyrisitia messalina) in der Tat am wahrscheinlichsten. Beste Grüße --LamBoet (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, mir auch. Dann belasse ich den Filename so. Vielen Dank!--Christian Pirkl (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merci d'avoir modifié la catégorie pour ce papillon que je n'avais pas bien identifié. Je cherche à catégoriser des fichiers des dernières années qui n'ont aucune catégorie et pas ou peu de description. Je fais au mieux. Je vois que tu es spécialisé dans les papillons. Il se peut que j'ai besoin de tes lumières pour d'autres photos. --Dinkum (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir @Dinkum, merci pour ton travail, et oui, si tu en vois d'autres pour lesquelles je peux aider, n'hésite pas :-) --LamBoet (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auf einem Weg im Wald nahe dem de:Aitzenbach am 30. Juni 2019 nachmittags: https://we.tl/t-xsKau6usco. (Fotos bleiben sieben Tage verfügbar. Leider keine Unterseite.) Habe ich die Art diesmal korrekt bestimmt? (Außerdem, aber km entfernt, habe ich Kaisermäntel, Argynnis paphia, im Wald gesehen. Alles um den Steinkopf oder Winterstein herum.) --Pete (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballapete: Ja, Limenitis camilla stimmt :-) Viele Grüße --LamBoet (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

---

Josh (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that! This is a shot in the wild. The ID is from iNaturalist, I think the user that left this identification may have meant to identifiy it as Bombycoidea. Feel free to make any corrections. - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your answer! I have done a little research and I think it could be a Saturniidae (which are part of the Bombycoidea superfamily): for example I see that Hyalophora cecropia seems to build that kind of cocoon. I am still not sure, but how about tentatively labelling your pictures as "Unidentified Saturniidae"? --LamBoet (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyalophora cecropia is in agreement with iNat's AI thinking it's Hyalophora. I'll change the category and description to "Unidentified Saturniidae" but leave the filenames for now so they don't get changed twice if we decide on a better ID. Thanks for your help =) - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I added a few categories. I didn't know about this AI, how well does it generally do? --LamBoet (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not perfect but I'm often really impressed by what it's able to do. It usually correct on the suggestions it's confident about. - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! May I ask you a little help? I have uploaded this photo (not a good photo, but still...) of a little butterfly collection held at Vilnius' University. I searched and verified the names of all the specimen but the last one, the one labeled Papilio hystopes. Either I'm misreading the label, or the label is wrong, or it is some obscure synonym. Do you have any insights? -- Syrio posso aiutare? 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Syrio: maybe they meant to write Papilio hystaspes (= Papilio helenus hystaspes) ? I don't know this species, but it looks fairly similar. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think that's correct! Other names are misspelled too, like Papilio nephelos instead of nephelus. Bye, -- Syrio posso aiutare? 21:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet, thanks for identifying the butterfly. I guess I will upload some more butterflys and caterpillars today. May I ask for you help to identify them. Greetings from Germany --Z ^thomas 08:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z thomas, no problem, I am happy to help if I can. I see that you just posted a Madagascar giant swallowtail: nice one! Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is ne stuff :-) I hope you like it. Greetings --Z ^thomas 16:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z thomas, I think I found the species of the geometer moth, but I won't reach species-level ID for the caterpillars. Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's fine! I guess I run out of butterfly and moth-pictures. When I find some more, I'll ask you :-) Greetings from --Z ^thomas 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lamboet, I small messsage to let you know I handled your request a couple of days ago right after you raised it. Was that time a bit in a hurry - so couldn't let you know earlier. Hoped you had already noticed it in the meanwhile. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudolphous: yes, many thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet,

Couldn't this File:Lepidoptera - 6.jpg be Spodoptera frugiperda [6]? Or a relative of this? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenesFeri: , no, the wing and body shape seem to be quite typical of Sphingidae here, except for the 3 on the bottom right, which seem to be Hesperiidae. I am afraid I don't know Mexican Lepidoptera enough to be more precise for now. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet, OK than; no problem. It was only an idea. I saw something similar in an Attenborough documentary, and I thought that I identified the insect. Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LamBoet: ist das hier Papilio thoas oviedo oder Papilio cresphontes? Meine Zuordnung ist jedenfalls sehr daneben. Liebe Grüße --Christian Pirkl (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Christian Pirkl: gut gesehen! Auf Grund des Bildes allein kann ich thoas und cresphontes nicht voneinander unterscheiden. Diese Liste der Tagfalter von Kuba erwähnt nur Heraclides oviedo (= Papilio thoas oviedo) und keinen cresphontes. Aber butterfliesofamerica.com schreibt bei cresphontes: "introductions to Cuba". Ich bin nicht sicher... --LamBoet (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umbennenung in Papilio sp. beantragen und in unidentified einordnen? Danke Dir--Christian Pirkl (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, klingt gut, bitte schön --LamBoet (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you a lot for all those categories on the butterfly pictures I uploaded! DavidJRasp (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sir as per guidelines given to my sir Bmantha, I have tried my level best to correct them. Please check it sir. Pl. excuse me for the inconvenience as I am a new learner. These things will not be repeated . It is all because of some confusion. thank you sir regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mramam (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sir I am practicing how to put signature as per your advise thank you Bmantha (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmantha: Your signature worked, thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sir Please do it as you wish sir, regards Bmantha (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmantha: : just to explain, I clicked on "Nominate for deletion" in the left column of the file page, and this created the template on the file page and the message on your talk page. An admin may decide to perform the deletion after seven days, if no one has an objection. --LamBoet (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much sir for your guidance and advise regards Bmantha (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet, My apologies for a crazy categorisation of File:Thread with caution.jpg as an unidentified lepidoptera. Clearly it is some form of millipede and it attracted me so much by its coat I did not look at the legs. Apologies for any annoyance I may have caused you.

I am in complete agreement with the advice you give about identifying the subjects of photographs and adding other information. This needs to be emphasised much more strongly at the uploading site.

Best wishes

Rich

@Richard Avery: No problem at all, you don't need to apologize :-)

Can we put it in Category:Unidentified Myriapoda? (I don't know much about millipedes)

Have a nice weekend --LamBoet (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olá, não falo (ou escrevo) em inglês, então usarei o tradutor automático para lhe falar.

Tenho registrado muitos lepidópteros com a câmera e o celular, e para identificá-los levo a um grupo de expertos no Facebook, mas nem sempre isso ocorre dada a diversidade de biomas aqui no Brasil - e acabo ficando com imagens sem trazer ao Commons porque simplesmente não sei o que são.

Dado seu interesse em verificar as espécimes aqui carregadas, gostaria de saber se existe algum meio de enviar-lhe as imagens que não pude, pelos meios citados, identificar. Meu e-mail pode ser contatado através desse perfil.

Mais uma vez agradecendo pela revisão das últimas imagens que trouxe, André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 04:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translated

Hello, I don't speak (or write) English, so I'll use the automatic translator to talk to you.

I have registered many lepidopterans with the camera and cell phone, and to identify them I take them to a group of experts on Facebook, but this does not always happen given the diversity of biomes here in Brazil - and I end up with images without bringing them to Commons because I simply I don't know what they are.

Given your interest in checking the specimens loaded here, I would like to know if there is any way to send you the images that I could not, by the means mentioned, identify. My email can be contacted through this profile.

Once again thanking you for reviewing the latest images I brought, André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 04:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @André Koehne: , thank you for your message. Unfortunately, my knowledge of South American butterflies is very limited, so I am afraid I won't be useful to you. I would suggest you try to get in touch with Brazilian entomologist groups. Best of luck --LamBoet (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you may have noticed I've started a free magazine (see my user page). In the next edition I am naming some experts who have helped with identifications like you have. Naturally I could only do this with your name rather than User id. I quite understand if you wish to remain anonymous. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlesjsharp: , thank you for asking me, but I am happy being anonymous indeed. Your magazine is beautiful, thank you for sharing your experience! --LamBoet (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the pigheadedness of a layman, I will try to explain my choice.
I took this photo and similar ones as an example.

You are proposing something like that.

I have questions for you
Are these genera really not distinguishable by the pattern on the wings?
Or is the attribution of the photos incorrect?
--Сарапулов (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Сарапулов, these genera can generally be distinguished by some details in the layout of the spots. An important criterion for genus Aricia (or at least for its European species) is the more inward position of the postdiscal spot labelled "P3" on these comparison pictures (source). You can see that your butterfly is not compatible with the Aricia agestis on the right. It could be one of the other 2 species, but not necessarily: I wouldn't identify it without at least checking the forewing underside or the upperside, which are not visible on your picture. I'd bet this is not Lysandra bellargus (the 3rd picture you linked) because the fringes don't seem to be chequered. I hope this helps --LamBoet (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LamBoet. Thanks you.

Hello LamBoet, talking about Category:Hydrillodes lentalis and for example this picture [7].

• This butterfly is Erebidae according to English Wikipedia + Dutch Wikipedia + description field by photographer.
• This butterfly is Noctuidae according to wikidata + commons infobox + swedish wikipedia + Vietnamese wikipedia.

Do you know where I can find a reference work for the current standard of butterfly taxonomy?

Hi @Rudolphous, that's a good question. The reference would probably depend on the group of butterflies or moths, I don't know if there is a really up-to-date reference for Lepidoptera as a whole. For the family-level classification, I suggest you trust Wikispecies, which is updated fairly regularly. In your example, the correct family is Erebidae. A lot of taxonomic changes were made to Erebidae/Noctuidae 10 years ago and haven't been propagated to many sources. In general, when a species is classified as Erebidae in some sources and in another family in other sources, you can assume that the correct family is Erebidae. I hope this helps. --LamBoet (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LamBoet, thanks for your answer. It's still a bit confusing. For example Category:Fodina contigua. On species + commons + vietnamese + swedish + ncbi + gbif + irmng this is stated that this is a Noctuidae, but on the English Wikipedia + inaturalist + lepindex + taibnet this is stated as Erebidea. Seems people use a lot of rules to draw a conclusion. Rudolphous (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rudolphous, sorry for the late reply. You are right, it looks like Wikispecies is actually not up-to-date with the former Catocalinae, which used to be in Noctuidae but are now in Erebidae (so Fotina contigua is an Erebidae now). I will try to make the update there when I have a little time. --LamBoet (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find the superfamilies to recategorize Category:Erebidae specimens. There were almost 8000 files in this category. I assume Erebidea is correct. Of the Erebidea references I see now that lepindex gives Calpinae and iNaturalist gives Erebinae. So even that is not in sync Rudolphous (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean subfamilies? Yes, it is still a bit of a mess. If you have examples of genera or species that you are not sure about, I can try to check the scientific literature to see what is their latest reported subfamily. --LamBoet (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I will continue the mapping and if I have problems I will let you know. Rudolphous (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LamBoet, there are several images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that are labeled as Hylesia nigricans. One image was previously used on English, Spanish, Swedish and Dutch Wikipedias and generated some discussion on iNaturalist that since the image was taken in Mexico, that it was likely misidentified.

I have now swapped the image originally used in the Wikipedia articles for the one in Argentina, but there are still six remaining images taken in Mexico that are likely mislabeled. Could you suggest an identification for these images? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Loopy30: , sorry for the late answer. Unfortunately I am not competent to identify such American caterpillars. If there is reasonable doubt about their identity, I think we should just re-label them as "Hylesia sp." or "Saturniidae". Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour!

Can You help to identify this caterpillar? Thanks for any response! --Ivar (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iifar, it looks a little like Lygephila pastinum, but I am not sure at all. --LamBoet (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Could be Lygephila pastinum, because the specimen on the photo looks very much like it, species is represented in Estonia and foodplants (Vicia cracca, Lathyrus palustris and Astragalus glycyphyllos) are growing nearby. --Ivar (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour!

Please check the link again and help to identify this caterpillar. I have found this one today. Thank You for the feedback! --Ivar (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iifar, this one belongs to the family Noctuidae, but I don't know the species. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LamBoet, I don't see you around anymore recently. All oke? Rudolphous (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rudolphous, I'm OK, thank you for asking. I haven't had much time lately, but I hope I can come back soon. I hope all is well is you. --LamBoet (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All ok here. Good that it's just busyness. Kind regards, Rudolphous (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, merci pour les corrections d'espèces en série. Je suis parfois un peu trop catégorique dans les déterminations...
Pmau (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Pmau, pas de problème. C'est vrai qu'il y en avait des piégeuses, comme les mélitées :) --LamBoet (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hope you are keeping well. Do you agree this is C.avis? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, yes, I hope you are well too. Yes, this appears to be a nice C. avis, with the typical redness around the eye and the complete white line. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For identifying File:Unidentified butterfly 20190611 160235.webm! Seeing the riddle solved in the category bar after all the years was a nice surprise. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]