- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,330
Nope not themh. sanguiniceps?
Nope not themh. sanguiniceps?
t. ockerti?Nope not them
strike twot. ockerti?
Ok last guess, c. darlingi?strike two
C. darlingi?
Negative on the echo in the roomOk last guess, c. darlingi?
Depends on what parameters you consider a dwarf.is it a dwarf?
No sirEphebopus rufescens
do people refer to them as dwarves?Negative on the echo in the room
Depends on what parameters you consider a dwarf.![]()
Actually dwarfs as far as I consider them, under 3-3.5"do people refer to them as dwarves?
nopeAnyone got the genus yet?
Negative on the echo in the room
Depends on what parameters you consider a dwarf.![]()
So you were already fully aware of the parameters.Actually dwarfs as far as I consider them, under 3-3.5"
Well I have been known to let the occasional 4" slip in the category during conversation... lolSo you were already fully aware of the parameters.![]()
actually now a synonym of Davus pentaloris if I read right. but no not D. pentalorisCyclosternum fasciatum... I have no idea.
Ughghghghhghghghgg... taxonomy changes.actually now a synonym of Davus pentaloris if I read right. but no not D. pentaloris
It's a never ending battle.Ughghghghhghghghgg... taxonomy changes.![]()
Me too!!, but no not that one eitherE.truculentus? :-s
* mentioned only because I love the name "truculentus" ah ah