ID opinions please (1 Viewer)

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

This specimen has been caught on the Island in last day or so. Concensus of opinion is that it is quite a locally rare species. As such any ID views would be appreciated to confirm/negate our thoughts. Not posting what we think as don't want to affect anybodys judgement

Many thanks in anticipation

Brian Stone · Jun 17, 2004

Well (presuming its that sort of size) I would have have passed it over as a Dark Arches if it had turned up in my trap (no doubt erroneously), especially as that was the most numerous species this morning (including one aethiops form). Looking forward to finding out what it is.

harry eales · Jun 17, 2004

The Drinker said:
This specimen has been caught on the Island in last day or so. Concensus of opinion is that it is quite a locally rare species. As such any ID views would be appreciated to confirm/negate our thoughts. Not posting what we think as don't want to affect anybodys judgement

Many thanks in anticipation

Hello Ian,
Im not at all sure what the status of The Dark Arches is on the IoM but that's what I think it is.

Harry

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

It dawns on you only when you post your own thread just how difficult this can be by photograph where scale is difficult to perceive.

Thanks for the feedback gents, it is a brocade of sorts, that much I could tell straight away in the hand (we get plagued by Dark Arches over here and they are already double figure per night).

I have to say that I have only just had chance to review Skinner since photgraphing the beast earlier (not caught personally) and I am now thinking Pale Shouldered as it's a cracking match for specimen 15 on Plate 29 (early edition). The recorder had the Waring book and I have to say it looked good in that for Light Brocade but I'd rather rely on Skinner personally.

Thoughts were more between Light and Beautiful (Light being a new Manx record and Beautiful being single figures).

Any views still most welcome.

harry eales · Jun 17, 2004

The Drinker said:
It dawns on you only when you post your own thread just how difficult this can be by photograph where scale is difficult to perceive.

Thanks for the feedback gents, it is a brocade of sorts, that much I could tell straight away in the hand (we get plagued by Dark Arches over here and they are already double figure per night).

I have to say that I have only just had chance to review Skinner since photgraphing the beast earlier (not caught personally) and I am now thinking Pale Shouldered as it's a cracking match for specimen 15 on Plate 29 (early edition). The recorder had the Waring book and I have to say it looked good in that for Light Brocade but I'd rather rely on Skinner personally.

Thoughts were more between Light and Beautiful (Light being a new Manx record and Beautiful being single figures).

Any views still most welcome.

Hello Ian,
I cannot get Pale Shouldered Brocade from my 2nd edition of Skinner and it does show characteristics of both Light and Beautiful Brocade. Definately a case of a 'Nuts' job to be certain. I hope the captor had the sense to retain the specimen.

Harry.

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

Thanks Harry.

Now that I've caught up with myself I have looked at the pictures I took earlier and found one a bit more correctly balanced. Features identical, however, the general colour contrasts better I think. The actual specimen is 'doing the rounds' at the moment.

We don't get many of either Light or Beautiful Brocade over here so any help much appreciated

Angus T · Jun 17, 2004

My immediate reaction was Dusky Brocade, as this is the predominant form with me. However seeing the other options suggested, I took look at skinner, because you have worried I'm letting the scarce moths off as Dusky Brocade.

Anyway, have a look at pl 37 no. 20 and tell me why this moth is not this one.

Edit:-
Have just seen revised picture, with the make up removed, or has it just seen a Ghost moth. my Duskys, wouldn't be that white, but ignoring the colour, the markings seem more right for Dusky than either Beautiful or Light, in both Skinner and Waring, at least in my eyes anyway.

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

Angus T said:
Anyway, have a look at pl 37 no. 20 and tell me why this moth is not this one.

I can't Angus! I wish there was more text and specifics on separation of the individual species (maybe there is in literature I do not possess). I think I'm going to recommend some nad surgery on this one due to it's potential significance as a record.

Angus T · Jun 17, 2004

Take a look at middle pic here.
http://jeffhiggott.topcities.com/lepidoptera/systematic_list/Noctuidae/2330.html

harry eales · Jun 17, 2004

Angus T said:
My immediate reaction was Dusky Brocade, as this is the predominant form with me. However seeing the other options suggested, I took look at skinner, because you have worried I'm letting the scarce moths off as Dusky Brocade.

Anyway, have a look at pl 37 no. 20 and tell me why this moth is not this one.

Edit:-
Have just seen revised picture, with the make up removed, or has it just seen a Ghost moth. my Duskys, wouldn't be that white, but ignoring the colour, the markings seem more right for Dusky than either Beautiful or Light, in both Skinner and Waring, at least in my eyes anyway.

No disrespect Angus, but I can't make it Dusky Brocade either, with any certainty. Still a 'Nadds' job as far as I am concerned.

Harry

harry eales · Jun 17, 2004

Angus T said:
Take a look at middle pic here.
http://jeffhiggott.topcities.com/lepidoptera/systematic_list/Noctuidae/2330.html

I would agree there are great similarities between Ians picture and the second pic on the above web site. This brings me to a question I posed in another thread today. After that photo was taken was a nadds job done on that specimen to prove identification?

Harry
Only believe one tenth of what your told, and half of that you see yourself
(somebody, but I can't remember who).lol.

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

Angus T said:
Take a look at middle pic here.
http://jeffhiggott.topcities.com/lepidoptera/systematic_list/Noctuidae/2330.html

Thanks again Angus
Seems very good and I can't see much difference between it and our specimen. I'd prefer it if it came with details of the features that make it 100% Dusky though (obviously it contrasts highly with the other two). What I am getting at is that if we (and it is also in dispute between a few well respected moth..ers over here) have this debate on identification, how can one person confidently post pictures giving identification. Were these specimens later 'nadded' for instance? I don't wish to dispute anything on the website, I just like to know these things for my own satisfaction. There are countless specimens in collections that have been shown to be misidentified in the past. Nad checks seem to be the only sure way of telling (but having looked into that area recently I get the impression that it is just seconds out, round 2!!!!). I personally love to find text and diagrams pointing to specific features that are diagnostic as opposed to comparison pics only.

Edit: Hadn't seen your post Harry - obviously thinking along the same lines. :h?:

Angus T · Jun 17, 2004

I'm not saying with 100% certainty, its Dusky, and not someting else. Pictures rarely give me the full story, and usually when I suggest an ID, its exactly that, a suggestion.

Get it checked, but I'm suggesting not to have high hopes of it being a rarity.

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

Angus T said:
Get it checked, but I'm suggesting not to have high hopes of it being a rarity.

Nor I Angus, I have to be the biggest sceptic going! One thing is for sure....I don't want any brocades in the morning or else that's the rest of my day gone for sure :gn:

harry eales · Jun 17, 2004

Hi Ian,
Having had a look through the text of Waring & Townsend, they say, similar species are:- Confused, Crescent Striped, White Colon, Dark Brocade and Light Nutmeg F. submissa, can superficially resemble Light Brocade, which is noticably greyer, or Pale Shouldered Brocade, which has a whiter 'W' mark. As Flanders and Swann would have said, "It all makes work for the working man to do". lol.

Harry

harry eales · Jun 17, 2004

The Drinker said:
Edit: Hadn't seen your post Harry - obviously thinking along the same lines. :h?:

If you can get your mitts on it Ian, send it to me and I'll do the dirty work.

Harry

The Drinker · Jun 17, 2004

Thanks for all the feedback gents, your input is most appreciated. Has been a most usefull (if inconclusive) thread. I am certain now that we can't be certain!!!! It's off to Professor Plums the nad consultant I'm afraid! (and I don't mean you by that Harry LOL)

Edit: Many thanks for the offer Harry (or is it the title you seek

). I'll contact our recorder and see what the score is. If I get any joy I'll PM you accordingly

MikeWall · Jun 18, 2004

harry eales said:
I would agree there are great similarities between Ians picture and the second pic on the above web site. This brings me to a question I posed in another thread today. After that photo was taken was a nadds job done on that specimen to prove identification?

I haven't commented on this moth because I wasn't confident on it's ID. I also wouldn't have been confident about calling the moth on Jeff Higgott's site a Dusky Brocade! Of all the macros, the 'Dark Brocade' complex I find one of the most difficult. All I will say is, I don't believe it's either Light or Beautiful Brocade, but would be more than prepared to be proved wrong, and it will be interesting to learn what it is.

Click to expand...

The Drinker · Jun 18, 2004

Well, after all that debate and Harry's generous offer I'm afraid we will all have to wonder on.........

The moth did the 'rounds' as a potential first (normal over here being such a small locality). Unfortunately when it was passed to one local moth..er he identified it as 95% certain Light Brocade and released it. General consensus over here had Light Brocade as favourite.

I can only assume he didn't realise that our county recorder usually passes new Manx record specimens to our Museum for archive reference and normally saves uncertain specimens for nads jobs (mainly micros).

We'll never know for certain now. I guess many people are completely against the thought of dissection for the purposes of identification and I can well sympathise. I do think, however, that significant records are worth confirming by whatever means as it only serves to add significance to an area as a source of Natural History in the long term.

ID opinions please (1 Viewer)

...I do it with the light on.

Attachments

A Stone chatting

Ancient Entomologist

...I do it with the light on.

Ancient Entomologist

...I do it with the light on.

Attachments

Well-known member

...I do it with the light on.

Well-known member

Ancient Entomologist

Ancient Entomologist

...I do it with the light on.

Well-known member

...I do it with the light on.

Ancient Entomologist

Ancient Entomologist

...I do it with the light on.

HantsMoth-er

...I do it with the light on.

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread