-
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.
One for Drinker to confirm (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Surreybirder
- Start date
Brian Stone
A Stone chatting
Looks like a Brown rustic to me.
Surreybirder
Ken Noble
Thanks, Brian. Looks promising! (Not a common moth in my area for some reason.)brianhstone said:
Brian Stone
A Stone chatting
Had my largest catch of the year last night with bucketfuls of moths. I think Dark Arches may have just overtaken Large Nutmeg (which appear to have finished for the time being) as the most numerous moth in the garden. Might get to about 150 recorded for June but I still have about half the catch to work through yet.
Surreybirder
Ken Noble
Sounds good! Let us know if you get any 'goodies'.brianhstone said:
harry eales
Ancient Entomologist
MikeWall said:
I agree it's a Copper U/wing but which one, that's the rub. If you have the specimen have a good look at the underside of the hindwing and compare it with the pics in Waring and Townsend. Not always a positive way of getting an ID but better I suppose than doing a Nad's job.
Harry
Brian Stone
A Stone chatting
Not surprised. It didn't look quite right and had no idea of size. Look forward to seeing one of these.
CJW
Hit-and-run WUM
There was an excellent article in Atropos a few years ago which suggested the depth of the 'tooth' I've indicated in the photo, was a consistant feature in identifying Svensson's. If that is the case then this very early specimen could well be that sp. (the tooth depth is much shallower in Cu Underwing which is apprantly borne out by 'nadding').MikeWall said:
Attachments
harry eales
Ancient Entomologist
CJW said:
An interesting tip that Chris, having looked at various illustration of both species in other books there does indeed seem to be a subtle difference, though I would still like a look at the underside of any specimens as a double check.
Harry
MikeWall
HantsMoth-er
harry eales said:
Like the marbling on Marbled Minors and the size / coloration of Common Rustics, features such as the length of the 'dagger' and the degree of copper suffusion on the underwings can only be used as a guide as to which specimens are likely to be worthy of further investigation, and certainly having looked at specimens in collections the first feature doesn't appear to hold.
The only consistent identification feature that I know of between the two, based on external features, is the 'hairiness' of the palps - IIRC Svensson's has the palps completely covered, whereas the upper two thirds in Copper are hairless (but it could be the other way round
, I'd need to check). This was published in a Brit.Ent.Soc. leaflet some years ago. I'll have to dig out the reference and come back.I don't get many personally, and normally later on in the year, coming to sugar mainly in August/September. Those that I've checked have all turned out to be Copper.
Surreybirder
Ken Noble
Larger moths of Surrey gives both species as 'widespread and common' but neither has been recorded much in my 10km square. I was initially confused by the fact that this book names svenssoni as Drab Copper Underwing.
Surreybirder
Ken Noble
I saw what must have been the same moth flying around our shed last night. It definitely had 'coppery' underwings with a thick black border. But I failed to catch it. Perhaps it will re-emerge tonight!
MikeWall
HantsMoth-er
MikeWall said:The only consistent identification feature that I know of between the two, based on external features, is the 'hairiness' of the palps - IIRC Svensson's has the palps completely covered, whereas the upper two thirds in Copper are hairless (but it could be the other way round
To put my own facts right....
The ref is BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST, 1:1988 p97-98.
An Additional Aid to the Identification of.......
by P. Q. Winter.
(so not BritEntSoc, but close)
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.
...so I got them the right way round, but the reason isn't that one's hairless as I said, it's the differing colouration of the scales on the palps. This is easily visible under a hand-lens.
Hope that proves of use in future months!
The Drinker
...I do it with the light on.
MikeWall said:
Mike,
Forgive me for being sceptical, but without provenance I have little faith in the accuracy of 'collections'. Are those that you refer to all known to be correct by way of genitalia examination?
So many aspects of identification (in general) seem to be claimed or refuted and yet the details of the research and supporting evidence to validate the claim(s) seldom made known (and I apply this reciprocally with regard to this feature discussed). It seems the good old 'nads' are still the only way to positively identify many species and without that I tend to never have total faith in an identity involving similar species such as these.
In case anyone wonders, I do not keep specimens for identification in this manner unless they would be considered an important record (such as previously unrecorded) and there are similar species issues.
Brian Stone
A Stone chatting
I take Ian's point here but wouldn't there have to be an huge coincidence for the feature to show consistently if some specimens were misidentified or incorrectly labelled.
MikeWall
HantsMoth-er
The Drinker said:
Yep. Hence my scepticism about the accuracy of the hindwing/abdomen/dagger markings as a diagnostic feature. They're guides, nothing more. By all accounts though the palps thing is diagnostic (it worked on the sample I looked at), and doesn't involve killing the moth.
Similar threads
