My 2008 Moth catches (1 Viewer)

[Reader]

Thanks Brian

Bud moth it is then.

That leaves just two to confirm.

Any takers?

I forgot I had one other moth. I didn't add it before as I didn't have a chance to take a photo (it was constantly on the move). Thankfully this morning it stopped long enough for me to take a couple. Is it a Case-bearing Clothes Moth

John

Edit

I keep forgetting to ask but I found this caterpillar at Thursley Common, Surrey last weekend. Does anyone know what it is please?

David is right with Bud Moth surely. Not confident about the Gypsonoma.

 

[Brian Stone]

I suspect the tineid needs to go under the knife and the cat seems replete with prolegs - i.e. it's probably a sawfly.

 

[Reader]

Hi Brian

I know I am a bit of an ignoramus but what are prolegs?

John

I suspect the tineid needs to go under the knife and the cat seems replete with prolegs - i.e. it's probably a sawfly.

 

[Brian Stone]

You should believe everything you read on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegs

It's the legs in addition to the 3 pairs of real legs at the front.

 

[Reader]

Thanks Brian

You should believe everything you read on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolegs

It's the legs in addition to the 3 pairs of real legs at the front.

 

[MikeWall]

That leaves just two to confirm.
Any takers?

Which ones need confirming? Everything said so far seems quite sensible Telling sociana and dealbana apart depends mainly on head coloration, and I can't determine whether it's 'cream' or 'white' from the pic. Otherwise, on jizz, it looks like dealbana.

Mike

 

[Reader]

Hi Mike

I hope this helps. I have taken two photos of head shots of both these two moths. Incredibly the first one flew off straight after the photo was taken after just coming out of the fridge (where it had been for three days).

John

Which ones need confirming? Everything said so far seems quite sensible Telling sociana and dealbana apart depends mainly on head coloration, and I can't determine whether it's 'cream' or 'white' from the pic. Otherwise, on jizz, it looks like dealbana.

Mike

 

[Reader]

Any advances on those last two photos Mike?

I ran a trap for just over two hours last night, trapping just over 140 moths. I have ID'd 46 species so far and only have two left that I need help on. They are.

1. Poss Batia unitella
2 & 3 ????

John

 

[Jos Stratford]

the first one flew off straight after the photo was taken after just coming out of the fridge (where it had been for three days).

What is the lifespan of these moths as flying adults? Why keep them in the fridge at all, let alone three days?

 

[Reader]

It was being kept in the fridge for possible dissection.

Sometimes this is the only way to correctly ID some moths. If I am to keep an accurate record for the County Recorder this is what has to happen.

John

What is the lifespan of these moths as flying adults? Why keep them in the fridge at all, let alone three days?

 

[Jos Stratford]

It was being kept in the fridge for possible dissection.

Sometimes this is the only way to correctly ID some moths. If I am to keep an accurate record for the County Recorder this is what has to happen.

On a par with the Victorian attitude to bird collecting then. Pity, I thought that, at least amongst those on this forum, we saw wildlife as something of beauty, not something to be killed to largely satisfy our collecting appetite.

 

[Reader]

Sorry Jos

Your way off beam here. Moths are very different to birds. There are moths that just cannot be ID'd without dissection and if they are to be correctly ID'd then that must be the way of doing it. Or are you saying that we shouldn't be recording these Moths?

John

On a par with the Victorian attitude to bird collecting then. Pity, I thought that, at least amongst those on this forum, we saw wildlife as something of beauty, not something to be killed to largely satisfy our collecting appetite.

 

[Reader]

Jos' replies has taken the thread away from what was wanted. ID's for two moths so can I ask that you look at post No 228 and try and help ID them please. Likewise could Mike look at the two moths in post 227 please and see if the head shots helps in identifying them.

Jos, can you please refrain from bringing your thoughts to this thread. If you have an issue PM me please.

John

 

[Jos Stratford]

Jos, can you please refrain from bringing your thoughts to this thread.

This is a private thread? If a member reads something on a thread and finds it interesting, distasteful or whatever, then they are entitled to post a reply. My comments directly related to what was posted.

Your way off beam here.

Not way off the beam, Victorians needed the shotgun to record their birds, here need the fridge and dissection. The same.

There are moths that just cannot be ID'd without dissection and if they are to be correctly ID'd then that must be the way of doing it.

I can think of a number of birds that are pretty impossible to identify in the field, do we advocate killing these too?

 

[MikeWall]

Not way off the beam, Victorians needed the shotgun to record their birds, here need the fridge and dissection. The same.

I can think of a number of birds that are pretty impossible to identify in the field, do we advocate killing these too?

Hi Jos, no this isn't a private thread and it's a reasonable question so I'll try and answer it. Whether you like the answer or not I cannot do anything about, but I respect your viewpoint and I hope you'll respect mine, or at least take it in the manner it is intended.

In some respects, your first paragraph is completely correct. The Victorians did need to kill their birds to identify them - and without doing so, would not have improved their knowledge of the world around them, leading to the birth of modern ornithology. In the same vein (unfortunately for the individual moth) some (in some taxa, many) species of invertebrate cannot be identified without dissection. This doesn't matter if as a recorder you are prepared to aggregate species and not go beyond identification to genus level, but if the true distribution of a species is required, then it is necessary. The analogy with birds breaks down when you consider that as higher-order species, birds exhibit complex visual and vocal behaviour which can establish identification through observation in the field - this isn't true of many insects, especially moths which being mainly nocturnal, find mates through pheromone attraction and their coloration is mainly defensive, either through crypsis or as a warning. As such, convergent evolution has led to many moths being similarly patterned - there are only so many ways you can make yourself look like a leaf or piece of bark! The male moth doesn't care what its mate LOOKS like, only what she smells like, which is of no use to human observers (with certain exceptions, clearwings for example).

If it helps, we are at the same level with some moth groups as Gilbert White was with Sedge/Reed Warbler, or Chiffchaff/Willow Warbler/Wood Warbler - recorders continually look for ways to separate species in the field, and this will continue: I would love to not have to dissect for identification, and generally don't unless doing a 'proper' survey. Ignoring moral issues for a mo, from a selfish viewpoint, it's a very time consuming way of spending time that could be better spent in the field.

The damage done to invertebrate populations by man's actions - intentional through development or not, e.g. driving a car - far outweighs the miniscule impact of one individual taking a few specimens for scientific purposes. Correct and accurate evaluation of a site's fauna has led to sites being saved from destruction, and without accurate knowledge of species distribution, including gardens, rarity or otherwise cannot be established, running the risk of developers challenging species status with the comeback of 'it isn't rare, it's under-recorded' (which happens far too often - ref Buglife's challenge of the Royal Mail depot at Thurrock).

I hope this has helped

Mike

 

[MikeWall]

It is G. dealbana and the other is a Tinea sp.

Mike

 

[Jos Stratford]

Hi Jos, no this isn't a private thread and it's a reasonable question so I'll try and answer it. Whether you like the answer or not I cannot do anything about, but I respect your viewpoint and I hope you'll respect mine, or at least take it in the manner it is intended.

A very reasoned response, thank you. Rather more effective than simply being told to go away and not bother the post.

Whilst I agree with the reasoning and sentiments, my view remains that it is a pretty poor show that any Tom, Dick or Harry (not implying anyone here)has the green light to collect and dissect as they see fit, not necessarily contributing to databases or information. We can't ring a bird, let alone kill it, without a license, but theoretically every person in the country can go out and dissect moths without any say so, presumably including the possibility of species in decline. Whilst I accept the analogy with birds is stretching it, I just see it as an extension of the same principle. (eg there are seabirds whose specific identification in the field is near impossible, but we wouldn't dream - I hope - of killing them to add them to the British list, etc).


One more general enquiry, if the moth is to be killed, why was it kept in the fridge for three days beforehand, strikes me (as someone without moth experience) as just abuse (even if it is 'just' a moth).



Aside this, the various moth threads I do find very enlightening, especially given I am sure that is the way I am moving - naturally to the extent that I would entertain the purposeful destruction of the animals I wished to take my interest.

 

[Reader]

I have deleted all your PM's to me and decided to answer you publicly because yet again you have made your comments in this thread.

I object to you stating that I have told you not to post but I did say to PM me. As far as I am concerned this is an ID thread and if there is an objection to the way I present my questions then yes I agree with being brought to book.

What you were implying had nothing to do with what the thread was all about (off topic comes to mind) and as such I don't appreciate being hauled over in public. I wouldn't do it to you and I don't expect it to be done to me.

In an open thread it's a different matter, ie July Moths etc, but in threads like this and threads like Readers 2008 UK list etc they are focussed threads, defined by the content and as such are very narrow in the type of reply, if any, that should be given.

Regarding keeping it in the fridge. The person that collects these moths lives miles away from me and can only collect infrequently. If there is enough doubt about a moth that it becomes necessary for dissection then the fridge is the only answer. It calms them down immensely and most of them almost go into an hibernating state. If I left them in a pot outside of the fridge they would be very active with nowhere to go for ages and would definitely die. The way I do it gives the moth a chance because the chaps with the real experience might be able to tell with close inspection what the moth is without dissection, hence moth ok and released unharmed.

BTW note that after three days of being in the fridge this moth took off almost immediately so it couldn't have done much harm.

Mike has been very eloquent and informative in his response to you and yet you don't really appear to accept what is being said. Unlike bird knowledge moth knowledge is in its infancy yet you still don't seem to accept the reality of that.

I can cite huge numbers of people that don't agree with ringing birds but you do. Does that make you right and them wrong or vica versa. It's the same with mothing. We have only one route to go to find out more about those that we know little about or are total confusion species. Without going down that route our knowledge will come to a standstill.

Now you either accept it or you don't, I don't care either way, but if you don't agree then keep it to yourself as you are having a go at people on this thread that understand the need for dissection. Any response from you trying to put your view over from now on is doing two things.
1. Imposing your view.
2. Insulting fellow BF members because you can't agree with the majority.

John

A very reasoned response, thank you. Rather more effective than simply being told to go away and not bother the post.

Whilst I agree with the reasoning and sentiments, my view remains that it is a pretty poor show that any Tom, Dick or Harry (not implying anyone here)has the green light to collect and dissect as they see fit, not necessarily contributing to databases or information. We can't ring a bird, let alone kill it, without a license, but theoretically every person in the country can go out and dissect moths without any say so, presumably including the possibility of species in decline. Whilst I accept the analogy with birds is stretching it, I just see it as an extension of the same principle. (eg there are seabirds whose specific identification in the field is near impossible, but we wouldn't dream - I hope - of killing them to add them to the British list, etc).


One more general enquiry, if the moth is to be killed, why was it kept in the fridge for three days beforehand, strikes me (as someone without moth experience) as just abuse (even if it is 'just' a moth).



Aside this, the various moth threads I do find very enlightening, especially given I am sure that is the way I am moving - naturally to the extent that I would entertain the purposeful destruction of the animals I wished to take my interest.

 

[Jos Stratford]

if you don't agree then keep it to yourself as you are having a go at people on this thread that understand the need for dissection. Any response from you trying to put your view over from now on is doing two things.
1. Imposing your view.
2. Insulting fellow BF members because you can't agree with the majority.

A little Stalinist in approach, I feel. Trying to shut people up by saying in advance that their response would be either imposing a view or insulting fellow members is just a plain joke. You brought up the issue of bird ringing and yes I do agree with that, but I absolutely would not tell someone to stay off a thread if they did not agree with me. In fact, I (and I think many ringers) would welcome the debate - if there are practices that can be improved, then I am all for it.

On the issue of the storage of live insects for days in the fridge and the subsequent dissection, I read this and was genuinely surprised that it is common practice for people that confess to have a love of wildlife. Maybe I am in a minority that finds this somewhat distasteful, but an educational post in the manner of Mike's is far more likely to persuade me of the merits of the methodology than being told to stay off the thread.

As said before John, this is a public forum, topics are up for debate, telling people to stay off because they question something or disagree with your view is not what forums are about.

 

[Reader]

I give up.

You have completely missed the point of this whole thread. One thing that is always paramount is the topic. If you want to go off topic start another thread and invite me, or any other member into it but stay out of a thread when what you are talking about has no meaning in that thread. if you haven't learnt that after all these years then there's no hope.

I will go no further into this thread with you other than to say it has got boring now and you obviously you ARE trying to impose your thoughts on us.

Stay happy.

John

A little Stalinist in approach!

However, trying to shut people up by saying in advance that their response would be either imposing a view or insulting fellow members is just a plain joke. You brought up the issue of bird ringing and yes I do agree with that, but I absolutely would not tell someone to stay off a thread if they did not agree with me. In fact, I (and I think many ringers) would welcome the debate - if there are practices that can be improved, then I am all for it.

On the issue of the storage of live insects for days in the fridge and the subsequent dissection, I read this and was genuinely surprised that it is common practice for people that confess to have a love of wildlife. Maybe I am in a minority that finds this somewhat distasteful, but an educational post in the manner of Mike's is far more likely to persuade me of the merits of the methodology than being told to stay off the thread.

As said before John, this is a public forum, topics are up for debate, telling people to stay off because they question something or disagree with your view is not what forums are about.