Talk:Actias sinensis

editorial Action required: It appears that the photo of the male specimen used here is of Actias parasinensis. The distribution given is likely incorrect, as the range refers to A. sinensis prior to A. parasinensis being described in 2009. I don't have a copy of Brechlin 2012, which described further Actias species and should give better insight into the distribution situation. Good, correctly identified, photos of A. sinensis and A. parasinensis can be found on the Paukstadt collection webpages (boxes 3 & 5 at http://wildsilkmoth-indonesia.com/1act_vis.html) and also on the iBiol Lepidoptera Barcoding project at http://www.lepbarcoding.org/saturnidae/species.php?region=1&id=43344 The wikipages for A. sinensis and A. parasinensis should cross-reference to each other with a "similar species" text to point out the differences in morphology and distribution. HKmoths (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)