Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
I mean it is overall rather dark and nothing is terribly well defined except for the sub-terminal line. I was trying to convey something of what it looks and feels like in the hand because I don't think the picture is a good representation.
Ah, righto.
Am I missing something though? Because in the photo there seems to be a suite of features to aid i.d. Surely if they aren't there, no matter how bad/non-representative the photo, they couldn't be made to look like they are (if you see what I mean).
The only things that are stopping me from saying that it is definitley a Grey Arches is the depth of the 'W' you mentioned and the darkness of the reniform. The general patterning of the insect is almost identical to Grey Arches.
Still, I suppose I should wait and see the 'new, improved' photos.
I know what you are getting at. All the features must be there sure enough. It is the relative prominence that appears to be out in the pic. For example, by far the most obvious feature was the sub-t line. That doesn't look much paler than other bits in the pic but I am sure it was. The pic shows the stigmata quite strongly outlined in black but you had to look closely to see this in reality.
The majority of those are pale Brian (the third pic' shows a nice dark one, though). Indeed, most of the ones i get are of this form, but dark ones do occur.
I'm working off memory here, as I'm in work.