Upper- and underside of butterfly wings are usually more or less different. Scopes so far didn't distinguish the view. To me Candalides hyacinthina (Common Dusky Blue), underside would be ok, but these subscopes should then be applied consistently. --Quartl (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCandalides hyacinthina is difficult to distinguish from Candalides erinus.[1][2] " The butterfly looks like the Common Dusky Blue, with very similar wing patterns but in paler colour." I don't know if that refers to both surfaces or not. Walter Siegmund(talk)04:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C. hyacinthina has its distribution at the "eastern seaboard of mainland Australia" [3] while C. erinus is found in "Timor, New Guinea and the whole northern half of Australia" [4]. This specimen was found at the southeastern coast, so it should be C. hyacinthina. --Quartl (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't disputing your identification. My comment was intended to address the question of whether this was a good illustration of mainscope or "underside" subscope. Despite not illustrating well the distinction of this species from a very similar one, indeed none of the images on the pages I referenced seem to do this, I would support a close crop (see below) mainscope or subscope nomination because the underside illustrates the distinguishing features better for the members of this genus, except for Candalides erinus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsiegmund (talk • contribs) 2010-09-20T18:03:26 (UTC)
Well, I do like the composition with the flower :-). I cropped the image more towards the butterfly, is this enough to you? Else, I need to cut the flower in half. --Quartl (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this scope, a close crop (just the insect) is better, I think. Please upload the original or your most recent crop under another name, if you wish. If the flower is a food-source for this species, you could nominate this version with a Candalides hyacinthina (Common Dusky Blue) and food-source scope. I don't think we've had Valued Image nomination with that sort of scope before, but I don't know why it wouldn't be well-received. Walter Siegmund(talk)18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't wish to belabor this. Mindful of the point raised recently on this talk page, I support this image version and scope or any of the alternatives I and others have suggested.[5]Walter Siegmund(talk)18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
