• 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.

Uncertain and Rustic (1 Viewer)

smokenack

Well-known member
I'm sure that this has been asked a thousand times before but is there really any reliable way to separate the two species without dissection?

I've been photographing all the specimens I've trapped over the last week or so and can't find any that meet all the criteria set out in MBGBI or for example here http://www.northumberlandmoths.org.uk/pdf/THE UNCERTAIN AND THE RUSTIC.pdf.

In fact different references seem sometimes to contradict each other e.g MBGBI states that Hoplodrina alsines has 'fuller, larger stigmata' whilst Waring and Townsend pictures Hoplodrina alsines with smaller stigmata than the H.blanda pictured next to it.

Is it safe to record all broad winged examples with a strong median fascia as Uncertain and narrow winged individuals with a weak or no median fascia as Rustic? I'm not sure that it is.

Thanks

Nick
 
Unlike the marbled minors the characters of uncertain and rustic do seem to stick more reliably. For instance when I found my first rustic, it was obviously "different" compared to the uncertain in more than just pattern. But whether that rustic was rustic or Vine's rustic...ahem.
 
The reason I posted is that I've seen on other forums people confidently IDing Uncertains and Rustcs on stigmata size, colour etc. I wasn't convinced personally. I get a few that I can reasonably confidently ascribe to one species or the other but the majority seem to fit somewhere between.
 
Last edited:
I've seen similar postings confidently identifying Common and Lesser Common Rustics. I'm never sure if this is over-confidence, or lack of experience, but they are another species pair that can't be done without examining their genitalia. The same goes for Uncertain and Rustic (my CR won't accept un-dissected records too).
If you look at the plates in Waring et al it looks quite simple - but years of trapping leads me to believe that it isn't. I've seen and dissected many specimens that were confidently identified by others (including 'experts'), only to discover that they were wrong when dissected.
Martin
 
Common and lesser common rustic have their general characteristics, like each of the marbled minors do. For instance lesser common rustic is usually dark with a white spot, and common rustic is usually pale or sandy brown. But common rustic can also be dark with a spot, sometimes.

So while it may indicate one species, it isn't diagnostic.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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