Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Abantiades Laptipennis.jpg

Pindi Moth

Reason: Illustrates family and genus. Quality/lighting is probably good. The species is notable enough for an article of its own but I don't have time.
Articles this image appears in: Hepialidae, Abantiades, Abantiades latipennis
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Good quality, but why take it from the rear? Composition would be better from a more side on or frontal view IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its pretty close to side on. There is another from the front. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks about 30 degrees away from side on. The frontal view is too frontal and the proportions/shape is harder to discern. Perhaps 20 degrees from the side on view towards the front would be ideal, but clearly you don't have a second chance to reshoot it. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is a (back focused) top down view, which explains what it might look like. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's its size? --Muhammad(talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better replace it as the taxobox image in Abantiades, IMO better than the current one. Also noise reduction under the abdomen. --Muhammad(talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which are you refering to abdomen wise? Also, about 80mm or so. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original seems to have some noise under the abdomen. --Muhammad(talk) 08:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support any--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this moth alive? It looks rather stiff/propped up. Particularly from the leg positions. Also it looks a bit haggard - lots of wing scales missing and one of the wings is torn. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, good point. :-) It does a bit dead, or at least rather sleepy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd assume it is nocturnal, but I found it during the day (~11am according to camera clock). It was crawling around a bit. If it was dead I would have taken it home and photographed it in controlled conditions. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, I had noticed that it had moved between the two shots, but for all I knew you could have moved it with your hand! It does seem a bit strange that it's propped up on that white thing (bit of fungus? bark?), with a couple of its legs off the ground though, so you can appreciate a bit of confusion/suspicion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually a gum nut. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how you ID'd this? Maedin\^talk 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article for the species, Abantiades latipennis, and if it is approved at DYK (fingers crossed) should be on the main page eventually. Noodle snacks, you spelled the species name wrong in your file name, and the name of the alternative version needs to be changed from Unidentified. If anyone is interested, this is probably a female dying of starvation, seeing as the moth doesn't have any mouthparts and can't eat for the duration of its adult life. I suppose the hunger is probably tempered by the mating frenzies at dusk in the meantime? ;-) Maedin\^talk 14:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you certainly have been busy. No wonder it's exhausted. It just spent the night being molested. Is the lack of mouthparts unique to that species? I'm hardly an expert on moths, but I remember reading about other insects that don't feed after metamorphosis... Of course I could be completely wrong, so I'm asking with honest curiosity. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lack of mouthparts is evident in all genera of the Hepialidae family, totalling about 587 species . . . whether it's also common in other families/genera/species, I have no idea! You could be right, but it was the first time I'd ever heard of it (but I am peculiarly uneducated, so no surprise there!). Maedin\^talk 15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the adult Black soldier fly has no mouth parts. --Muhammad(talk) 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have been busy! I've got a book, "Wings: an introduction to Tasmania's winged insects" which I use to help ID things. I also have an entomologist contact who was at DPIWE but is now at the Museum (which has a reference collection of insects). My mistake on the species name. Don't get me started on the pain that renaming is. I'd re-upload the alternate prior to promotion if it looked like it was going to happen. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, one thing, on a purely size basis I'd be leaning towards a male for this one. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok about the ID, but while "conducting research" for the article, I started to think that maybe this isn't A. latipennis, but I have zero experience, so I would trust your judgement better than mine! The wing markings don't seem to match those of a male A. latipennis, so instead of thinking the species ID was wrong, I decided that perhaps it is a female, because the silver bars aren't outlined in the females and are less prominent. The body is also more grey than brown to me, which matched the female descriptions I read. But information was quite scarce, anyway, so there isn't a lot to go on. Maedin\^talk 06:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mind you, on a size basis 80 vs 100mm isn't that different really (considering the estimation involved). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A good proportion of the visible wing is damaged, with the furry covering that makes the markings rubbed off. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only --Muhammad(talk) 05:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - would prefer a more healthy specimen with less wear on the wings and a more lively pose. Technical quality is excellent. Kaldari (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "female dying of starvation" in the caption fix that? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that would be an improvement on the second image at least. Then the condition of the moth would contribute to its EV rather than detracting from it. I would be inclined to support the second picture in that case, but still not the first. The moth in the first picture reminds me too much of Weekend at Bernies. Kaldari (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Illustrates the subject in a compelling fashion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per Mostlyharmless. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good colour & form giving obvious EV, just a bit "zapped" under that big light, which could have improved detail had it been a little less front-on. I'm ok with the setting & war wounds, personally. --mikaul^talk 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the original it was about 45 degrees and front left. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No scale provided. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A read of the article might help you find this information. Best not to play guesswork. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll try and pack a ruler in future, but I reserve the right to not get attacked by Myrmecia. I'd also bear in mind that most insects will fly away when you get to close (ie with a ruler). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Abantiades Laptipennis.jpg Consensus seems to be in the direction of the original. --wadester 16 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]