Oppose Thank you my very dear and so kind friend, I know how to use and to read [5] and [6], but I regard this answer as not sufficient enough. I really miss the rest of this animal. IMO, therefore is the scope not good, because the picture shows only "a part of" or a "detail of" a Marphysa sanguinea, even if the fragment you show is probably the most important for the species. --Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one proposes an orchid as VI then one does not uproot the plant to show the roots as the most important parts of the organism are visible without that. Idem ditto for Marphysa sanguinea, where the head and the distinctive filliform gills are the identifying characteristics, as can be gleaned from the provided links. W.S.17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trees are a good example of a subject where an image of the whole tree is of less value than an image of fruit, foliage and twigs. It is often the case that species are indistinguishable within a genus or even a family on the basis of a whole-tree image. Examples are Pinus and Acer. I support main-scope nominations of images that depict notable and distinguishing features of species. --Walter Siegmund(talk)18:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://species-identification.org/image_window.php?url=BIS/macrobenthos_polychaeta/pictures/m_sanguinea-detail.jpg&title=M.%20sanguinea-detail){kind=link}
