Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Ascalaphus sinister

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ascalaphus sinister, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2014 at 06:15:13 (UTC)

  • male
    male
  • female
    female
  •  Info These owlflies seem crepuscular and rest most of the time "on stems and twigs with the body, legs, and antennae pressed to the stem." I was in search for small damselflies and robberflies, and it flew away when I accidentally touched the branch of the Mimosa pudica where it was resting. I'm able to locate it's new perch and slowly approached from behind. It is a very alert subject and difficult to approach from front or side. But I succeeded to made some side views from a distance with my tele focal length, by laying on the bed of thorns. Later I searched for them and fond the similar ones from almost same environment, although from different plants. These are Ascalaphus sinister Walker, 1853, male and female; identified by Joshua R Jones at Texas A&M University. Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Jee 06:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- The story: I found them four years ago in the summer 2010. As soon as I published them at Flickr with a CC license, Prof. John D. Oswald of Texas A&M University contacted me requesting permission to use them in their Lacewing Digital Library. But he can't identify them. Since then I posted these pictures in many sites, contacted many experts; but no results. Now one of my friend posted a similar image in an Entomology FB group and Shyamal shared it to a Neuropterology expert group. Joshua R Jones stepped in an identify both species. Dr. Joshua noted: "These species were described 160 years ago and only reviewed in 1949. Although common, they are difficult to identify, and the classification of the genera and tribes to which they belong is in need of a modern taxonomic revision." Roberto A. Pantaleoni, another expert said "Being curious, I tried to understand something. Unfortunately the good revision of Kimmins (1949) was based on dried and conserved specimens, the ID by photos is completely different." Anyway we finally got a result and I'm glad to share it with you. More information collected so far about this species is available in file description. Enjoy! (I agree, the photo quality is average; so not bothered about whether they get featured or not.) Jee 06:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Mainly for the scientific and educational value, but nothing wrong with the quality either.--ArildV (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Passes the bug bar IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yann (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for all the efforts of people included for identification, and image quality is good to go for FP. --Joydeep Talk 12:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --JLPC (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Poco2 16:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Ascalaphus_sinister&oldid=576805568"