• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Svensson's Copper Underwing (1 Viewer)

Brian Stone

A Stone chatting
I caught my first Copper underwing (Amphipyra sp.) last week. I felt confident it was a Svensson's (A. berbera). As the attached pics show the underside of the hindwing is extensively copper along the length of the wing. On Copper Underwing (A. pyramidoides) the copper is restricted to the posterior third, the rest being cream coloured.

For info the moth was chilled in the freezer for about 5 minutes so it could be briefly inspected and photographed. It recovered very quickly and was released unharmed.
 

Attachments

  • svenssons_cu_22jul04_420a.jpg
    svenssons_cu_22jul04_420a.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 176
  • svenssons_cu_22jul04_420b.jpg
    svenssons_cu_22jul04_420b.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 145
Because, I believe, the feature you have used is inconsistent. Furthermore the depth of the 'teeth' on the upper crosslines are fairly uniform, which is more of a pyramidoides feature.
Just my opinion, Brian.
 
brianhstone said:
For info the moth was chilled in the freezer for about 5 minutes so it could be briefly inspected and photographed. It recovered very quickly and was released unharmed.

I agree with Chris, I wouldn't want to claim it on this dubious feature. As I posted recently (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=19058) the only diagnostic feature I am aware of is the colour of the scales on the palps, which on pyramidea (Copper Underwing) has white tip to palp and cream or ochreous scales down the sides of this segment and the next. Berbera (Svensson's)has just a tip which is white with the rest dark, so the tip stands out from a darkish background.
 
Andrew said:
So is it even NOT safe to assume it's a Copper Underwing either? Without the 'nadding', that is.

I'd record it as a Copper Underwing sp. (Amphipyrea pyramidea/berbera agg.) It doesn't need gen.det'ing - the palps can be looked at with a hand lens on a perfectly alive moth.
 
Hi Brian,
I agree with Chris (CJW) The adult moth is not easily seperable without dissection. A 'Nad's job' cannot be successfully done on a living specimen even if it is anaethistised, as it will invariably be damaged internally. If your specimen is a female try keeping her for eggs, the fully grown larva are easily separable. Should be any chance your specimen 'snuff it' send it to me and I will do the 'dreaded deed'

Harry
 
Last edited:
Right! I feel a right nit forgetting about your earlier post Mike. However perhaps all is not lost if the palps can be made out clearly enough in the attached pic.
 

Attachments

  • cu_head.bmp
    130.3 KB · Views: 171
brianhstone said:
Right! I feel a right nit forgetting about your earlier post Mike. However perhaps all is not lost if the palps can be made out clearly enough in the attached pic.

Yo! It's a Svensson's - white tip to the palps....QED.
 
I've got one in the fridge at the moment. I'll try to get some shots of palps when I get home. Not quite sure what I'm looking for, but I'll go for the head end...
 
MikeWall said:
Yo! It's a Svensson's - white tip to the palps....QED.

Mike,
I don't want to rain upon your parade, but have you verified at all the specimens you believe to be Svensson's CU by any other means. No disrespect, but one minute point like white palps isn't sufficient in my opinion
to be a positive ID factor unless it's been verified by:-

a. Several white tipped palp specimens being dissected for genitalia examination. Every one would have to be a Svenssons CU

b. Several ordinary specimens of Copper U/wing being examined in the same way just to make sure that they are all Copper U/wings, all would have to be.

c. Examined series of these insects is museum collections to make sure that all those identified as Svenson's CU all show the white tipped palps, and those identifies as ordinary Copper U/wing do not have white palps. (This is of course assuming that the museum has them identified correctly).

By several specimens I mean at least thirty of each species from various locations around the country, throughout the whole geographical range of each of these species, not just your locality.

It is possible that white tipped palps may just be a minor local variation and you would have to prove it wasn't. You would also have to prove that it applied to both males and females of the species as well. Not every entomologist can sex every moth they catch. Certainly it's easy when male and female differ in colour or antennae, but many moths don't vary in colour or antennae.

Until it can be proved beyond any doubt that all Svenson's CU's have the white tipped palps, AND all ordinary Copper U/wings haven't, then I am still for positive ID'ing by genitalia preparations. The only alternative is to put both species under Copper U/w agg.

Harry
 
Last edited:
Here's my CU.

Based on Mike's palp test this appears to me to be an ordinary CU.
The underwing also appears to be more like the pics of ordinary in Waring.
The dagger thing maybe goes slightly in favour of Svensson's though.
 

Attachments

  • CU head.jpg
    CU head.jpg
    65 KB · Views: 181
  • CU underneath.jpg
    CU underneath.jpg
    64.8 KB · Views: 128
  • CU top.jpg
    CU top.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 158
harry eales said:
Mike,
I don't want to rain upon your parade, but have you verified at all the specimens you believe to be Svensson's CU by any other means. No disrespect, but one minute point like white palps isn't sufficient in my opinion
to be a positive ID factor unless it's been verified by:-

Harry,

Not my parade mate, so feel free to rain on it! I'm not taking any credit for coming up with an original idea, as I said in my original post it came from the Brit.Ent.Soc. journal, where an entymologist (whose name I can't recall) of no doubt great renown had done his homework. All I can claim is that I have personally looked at a collection of 10 CUs, 5 of each species, all of which had been gen'd, and at least one of the pyramidea showed the hindwing characteristics of berbera. There was no consistent features shown on the upperwings. Testing the palps thing, however, worked.

So take that as you will. I'm far more happy with this structural test than the somewhat arbitrary 'plumage' features we've been fed before, knowing how variable individual moths can be.

Cheers
 
Andrew S said:
Here's my CU.

Based on Mike's palp test this appears to me to be an ordinary CU.
The underwing also appears to be more like the pics of ordinary in Waring.
The dagger thing maybe goes slightly in favour of Svensson's though.


I would agree, Andrew. You can also see that structurally they're different- the scales don't go as far up the palps as they do in Brian's SCU. And I'd forget that dagger thing, I (IMHO) don't believe it works. I think the underwing is a strong pointer, and the palps the clincher in ID. If in doubt, nads!
 
MikeWall said:
Harry,

Not my parade mate, so feel free to rain on it! I'm not taking any credit for coming up with an original idea, as I said in my original post it came from the Brit.Ent.Soc. journal, where an entymologist (whose name I can't recall) of no doubt great renown had done his homework. All I can claim is that I have personally looked at a collection of 10 CUs, 5 of each species, all of which had been gen'd, and at least one of the pyramidea showed the hindwing characteristics of berbera. There was no consistent features shown on the upperwings. Testing the palps thing, however, worked.

So take that as you will. I'm far more happy with this structural test than the somewhat arbitrary 'plumage' features we've been fed before, knowing how variable individual moths can be.

Cheers

Thanks for the source Mike, I'll try and get a copy of that journal. In the meantime I'll remain unconvinced until I have seen the data.

One of Arthur C. Clarkes three Laws of science come's to mind, which says:- When an eminent scientist states that something is definately so, he is invariably wrong.

Harry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top