Question What in the picture tells us that it is actually a subimago? BTW, independently of this review, I think the picture could safely be nominated with the species as the scope, since it is the only picture we have of it (a picture can be nominated several times with different scopes). --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that I understand, but could you please point out what, in the look or appearance, visible on this image, is specific to a subimago (and by which one can tell it's not an imago)? --Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still waiting for a response of a enthomologist specialized in mayflies -- maybe he has diapause, too ;-) What I know for shure is that the wings of a subimago are dull. Finer differentiations can only described by an enthomologist. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Subimagines have a furry skin (Subimaginalskin) which covers the wings, too. The wings are allways dull with a specific texture. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I can appreciate the difference between subimago and imago in R. germanica now, I'm still not convinced if this is the best way to illustrate this aspect of insect development (it being rather difficult to see, especially for a layman). Of course the photograph would satisfy the criteria under a species scope. Lycaon (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note: if somebody promotes this candidate, please remove it from the list at once, try not to let a bot process it again! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
