ID Tips for new moth'ers (4 Viewers)

[davidg]

I read in Manley that the underside of pyramidea has 'minimal copper marking beside body' whereas berbera has 'copper marking extending full length of body'. Anyone know how reliable that feature is?

I think this was the 'original' way of separating the two - and damn difficult it is too without damaging the poor moths. I was greatly relieved when the palps method came along but it looks like we're back to square one!

David

 

[Surreybirder]

I think this was the 'original' way of separating the two - and damn difficult it is too without damaging the poor moths. I was greatly relieved when the palps method came along but it looks like we're back to square one!

David

My CR is reluctant to accept IDs based on photos of palps... I'm pretty sure he wouldn't accept this method either. I just record them as aggs.
Ken

 

[Brian Stone]

I think this was the 'original' way of separating the two - and damn difficult it is too without damaging the poor moths. I was greatly relieved when the palps method came along but it looks like we're back to square one!

David

Have I missed something saying the palps are no longer considered reliable now?

 

[Surreybirder]

Hi, Brian,
I've not heard anything to suggest that the palps aren't reliable but they are very difficult to get a convincing photo of, so I was wondering whether this thing I read in Manley was reliable or not. It seems from the above that he's out-of-date.
Ken

 

[davidg]

Have I missed something saying the palps are no longer considered reliable now?

There was a discussion on the UKMoths Yahoo group in August last year that cast doubt on this method of splitting the two. Colin Plant apparently did a series of dissections of pyramidea and berbera and compared the results with the palp colour and found they didn't match. Quite a useful series of e-mails if you check the UKMoths archives.

David

 

[jforgham]

Like the idea of this thread and it started off with good intentions. However, a little misleading as I, as a new mother (1 week) was baffled by post 7. Perhaps photos of the really basic common moths, heart and dart, lesser yellow underwing etc would be more helpful to new mothers. As such, any disapproval if I add a few myself as I discover new moths every morning?
These are ones that appear to be everyday moths at present (May/June)
1 is a willow beauty along with photo 2. Note the 2 cross lines on the forewing and the dark spot where the lines meet at the rear margin.
photo 3 is mottled beauty. from my short experience, they are amazingly variable. the smooth curves of the outer cross line are fairly diagnostic. look for the S shape near the front of the forwewing.
photo 4 is 1392 Udea olivalis. One that features every morning in my trap, so I suspect widespread and common. The 3 spots, all different shapes, on the forewing are obvious.
Hopefully I can offer future comments along with these thoughts. If nothing else, it helps me to remember the creatures myself.
cheers,
Jono

 

[Surreybirder]

Pale oak beauty can be a trap for the unwary.

 

[Hillevandam]

I am a new kid on the block trying to make sense out of my photo archive of west African moths. I found a checklist with over 2000 names. Only 1/3 of these moths have photos on the web and acc. to some websites 90% of the African moths are not documented yet. So,the photos on the web represent 3% of the total.
I do have some photos that look like your beauty's in this thread. same shape and lace structure. Would you mind giving not only the species name but also the family name, like Brian does? It might helpme to considerably narrow down my searches.

 

[Surreybirder]

I am a new kid on the block trying to make sense out of my photo archive of west African moths. I found a checklist with over 2000 names. Only 1/3 of these moths have photos on the web and acc. to some websites 90% of the African moths are not documented yet. So,the photos on the web represent 3% of the total.
I do have some photos that look like your beauty's in this thread. same shape and lace structure. Would you mind giving not only the species name but also the family name, like Brian does? It might helpme to considerably narrow down my searches.

Hi, Hillevandam,
You've taken on a big challenge there o
I'm not sure that even having the scientific names of European species will help much. There is clearly a massive amount of work to be done in just collecting specimens, cataloguing them, describing ones that are new to science, comparing them with museum collections etc. Only the most dedicated are going to get to grips with what sounds like pretty much a new moth fauna. It's similar to the challenges that European entimologists faced in the Victorian era as they explored the globe.
As Sierra Leone had the (mis)fortune to be a British colony, I suspect that the British Natural History Museum might be a good place to contact.
Good luck!

 

[pppppvvvv]

Also take photos, and run them past inaturalist or obsidentify. Both apps are very good at identifying moths from decent photos.

Not to be taken as gospel, but can at least support your theory, or provide a good starting point.
( Inaturalist also has a community who will add their identifications to your sightings for a wider concensus)

 

[Owene]

Also take photos, and run them past inaturalist or obsidentify. Both apps are very good at identifying moths from decent photos.

Not to be taken as gospel, but can at least support your theory, or provide a good starting point.
( Inaturalist also has a community who will add their identifications to your sightings for a wider concensus)

It's possibly not the best approach but if you hit upload on wildly wrong obsidentify identifications you will usually get a person who knows what they are on about emailing you with corrections quite quickly.

 

[pppppvvvv]

It's possibly not the best approach but if you hit upload on wildly wrong obsidentify identifications you will usually get a person who knows what they are on about emailing you with corrections quite quickly.

There is definitely a downside that you can become lazy and use it 100%. But as a complement to your field guide / research it is good.

 

[Surreybirder]

iSpot is another option.... you get more back-and-forth on many of the observations, though to be honest some of them get ignored!

 

[S_Man]

iSpot is another option.... you get more back-and-forth on many of the observations, though to be honest some of them get ignored!

I'm curious about this, I first tried observation.org and their auto/AI identification engine is excellent, very fast! But limited to Europe and some islands.
On iNaturalist I can't find any auto ID, only a manual photo search? at least on their web platform, maybe they have an app that can do ID?
Before I sign in to another website, can you tell me about ispotnature.org, do they have AI? if so for which areas?

 

[pppppvvvv]

I'm curious about this, I first tried observation.org and their auto/AI identification engine is excellent, very fast! But limited to Europe and some islands.
On iNaturalist I can't find any auto ID, only a manual photo search? at least on their web platform, maybe they have an app that can do ID?
Before I sign in to another website, can you tell me about ispotnature.org, do they have AI? if so for which areas?

I missed it on inaturalist initially, but when you add an observation, under the images you have added there is a box:
" [ ? ] what did you see "
Click here!

Obsidentify is another good app for giving you i.d. suggestions. In fact I often find this app more accurate.

 

[Surreybirder]

I'm curious about this, I first tried observation.org and their auto/AI identification engine is excellent, very fast! But limited to Europe and some islands.
On iNaturalist I can't find any auto ID, only a manual photo search? at least on their web platform, maybe they have an app that can do ID?
Before I sign in to another website, can you tell me about ispotnature.org, do they have AI? if so for which areas?

iSpot doesn't use IA for moths. If you want that, iNaturalist is an option although I sometimes find that they put up Australian or North American species for Uk moths. Google Lens is also an option. But some moths are really tricky and a more interactive approach with other users can be helpful. I don't know of any fail-safe way of getting moths ID'ed except sending the corpse to my VCR.

 

[S_Man]

I missed it on inaturalist initially, but when you add an observation, under the images you have added there is a box:
" [ ? ] what did you see "
Click here!

Obsidentify is another good app for giving you i.d. suggestions. In fact I often find this app more accurate.

OK, thanks, for iNaturalistif I have to click on the small looking glass under the uploaded image - even without typing any search word - and I get suggestions!

I agree about Obsidentify/observation.org I'm impressed, although I don't know enough about moths to judge of their accuracy, and I also notice some minor fails with other taxonomic groups, So even if they say 75% probability, some manual checking might be needed...

 

[Atropos]

Depending on where you are IDs suggested by the iNat algorithms need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt and should only be used with a huge amount of caution and checked against as many alternate resources as possible. Here in Aus when I have looked just to see what they suggest when doing mass uploads have had some very interesting results, aside from genera that dont occur anywhere near me have had many where the wrong family has been suggested a a "confident ID". That said there are some brilliant and exceedingly helpful people on there that check IDs

 

[Surreybirder]

I suspect that part of the challenge for AI is the lack of reliable information on the internet. If there were thousands of reliable pictures of every moth species, AI would probably be more reliable than a human - but there aren't. On the other hand, looking at the AI efforts with birds on iSpot, the success rate is very high. Presumably because there is a huge amount of reliable data available. But even there, you can get some howlers. I forget the exact details of the picture but someone posted a pic of a shorebird on a rocky shore and the answer came back as 'little owl'. Perhaps one of the rocks did resemble a little owl?

 

[pppppvvvv]

I suspect that part of the challenge for AI is the lack of reliable information on the internet. If there were thousands of reliable pictures of every moth species, AI would probably be more reliable than a human - but there aren't. On the other hand, looking at the AI efforts with birds on iSpot, the success rate is very high. Presumably because there is a huge amount of reliable data available. But even there, you can get some howlers. I forget the exact details of the picture but someone posted a pic of a shorebird on a rocky shore and the answer came back as 'little owl'. Perhaps one of the rocks did resemble a little owl?

but there are hundreds of verified photos of Moths...
iNaturalist for example:
Kentish Glory 607
Vestal 6893
December Moth 1084
Map Winged Swift 656
etc...