Oops, I didn't realize I did that. :-)

(::sheepish grin::). Sorry about that. I hate it when I do sloppy work.

Shall we move this image to the ssp page in keeping with the All-Leps taxonomy?

Hmm, Bob, I think I see the differences you're referring to, however, they broach two points. One is that there is no entry for Gloveri, here on BugGuide. Two is that I defer, instantly, to your expertise, which far exceeds mine. So, please, inform me of what I should do from here?

All I do is match photos. You can do it as well as I can, probably better. And these tired old eyes make mistakes, so look up all IDs supplied to you to be sure that you agree in each case. One of the editors will set up a species page when time is available.

First, my eyes are looking through reading glasses and are not what they used to be either. Second, as regards photo matching, in the past week or so, I've begun to get a glimmering of what an investment those photo guide books can represent as an cost. And third, I'm wise enough to understand how important practice is, when it comes to looking for the exact features that enable one to make a determination. To even know what the terminology of the features are, is something that takes time to become familiar with, time that I haven't spent. Fourth, I did look up all ID's supplied and I agree with your determination, and the plate references you used, but wouldn't have even known they existed.

I'm a deep and broad scientist, familiar with many fields and expert in a few, but I'm just learning entomology. I learn far more rapidly than most, even now, in my fifties, but I'm exerienced enough at learning fast, to fully realize that racing ahead rapidly leaves 'gaps', that the more specifically experienced have better filled. So, I both appreciate your modesty, and still defer to your expertise!

This is an aspect of BugGuide I was unaware of, Jim. I'll be sure to take more pictures of insects in the future and submit them here. That range information is going to be another important aspect of what BugGuide is, and can be. I've done a lot of statistical analysis in my life, and the data sets available to be drawn upon and included in those analysis, have frequently been limited to that which professionals could raise funds to acheive, and thus, covering very small portions of the potential range. We've entered an age where everyone has a camera now, in their cell phones even. I would say the 'eyes' of Science have been widened. By maintaining a place for these entries to be included and stored, BugGuide is providing an incredibly important service.

As an example, as the West Nile virus spread across the North American continent, establishing the rate and range has been difficult. Many things are 'piggy-backed' upon insects and, knowing their ranges more accurately, can play a huge role in limiting and/or preparing for their spread. As a data collection center, BugGuide can become very important, precisely because it encourages all submissions, from people in all walks of life. Wow.

Some of the present range gaps owe to having few contributors in certain regions. From the outset there was a heavy eastern tilt to the species submitted but the western regions now have quite a few image posts weekly as well. Eventually we will have very good contributor coverage.

The current spottiness notwithstanding, a great many range extensions have already been logged first on bugguide. Also of interest are the records showing the marked differences in single species across their range (E.G. pronotum color from north to south in Neom*ida bic*ornis).

Hmm, as a newbie here, I had not done the depth of familiarization with what has gone before that I should have. I've now read at least a hundred of the postings on the various forums here on BugGuide. The issues of frassing, data point storage and guide image quality are now something, of which I'm much more aware. Wow. For now, I'll state that:

1. Please 'frass' any images of mine that are not useful or required. I certainly won't be offended.

2. When I've become more familiar with appropriate methods I'll frass or move my own, thus, hopefully, limiting the strain on the editors and others concerned with the issues concerning storage and indexing all of the submissions to BugGuide.

3. I'll try to focus on providing excellent quality photos of insects that are either less likely to be photographed because they don't draw as much attention (as butterflys are) OR are such spectacular examples as to merit inclusion in the guide ELSE are unique representitives of range or type.

I believe, personally, from what I've read, that BugGuide will be a better place for all, if each contributer tries to limit clutter, right from their first posting, and strives to keep the aforementioned issues of Frassing, Data Point Storage and Guide or Image Quality in mind.

I will also be trying to get shots from more angles, angles which will assist in determining exact identification! I am now, much more aware of how exacting a process identification is, and what it takes to positively confirm a specific species.

:-)

I think your first call was correct, Nina, as the abdomen was striped, not spotted...

you mean my cecropia guess, which i edited...thinking promethea, but upon closer inspection of the abdomen with the stripes, I went back to the cecropia and looked at the group it belongs to b/c the markings didn't seem to match up quite right to my field guide--looking online here on BG, you can see there are a few types of similar moths...

look at cecropia v. columbia, lmk what you think.
Nina

Nina, I am now in a position to understand your hesitancy in determining which moth species this is. The precise nature of identification and the requirements thereof far exceed those which I had imagined. In retrospect, I find your manner of 'guessing' to be quite correct, and again, thank you for your efforts, and further, compliment you on your manner of doing so.

Having checked all the images in that range, I maintain that your first 'guess' was right on. Photo#110728 Hodges#7767 is it exactly, and the color is more accurate. Thanks, ever so much.