Anthelid moths (Anthelidae)
Announcements
There are currently no announcements.
Discussion
JulieMorgan
wrote:
2 hrs ago
Hi Ian,
Thank you for sending the links. Yes, it does for one specimen of A. deficiens. Unfortunately, I can't access all the images of A. acuta. I often have trouble accessing the website generally. Not sure why. What comes to mind is the variety of specimens at ANIC and the work that has yet to be done with the Anthela genus.
Cheers, Julie
Thank you for sending the links. Yes, it does for one specimen of A. deficiens. Unfortunately, I can't access all the images of A. acuta. I often have trouble accessing the website generally. Not sure why. What comes to mind is the variety of specimens at ANIC and the work that has yet to be done with the Anthela genus.
Cheers, Julie
Anthela acuta
ibaird
wrote:
5 hrs ago
See Julie Morgan's comments nelow:
Anthela acuta (Common Anthelid)
They suggest this sighting may be A. acuta after all.
Anthela acuta (Common Anthelid)
Anthela acuta (Common Anthelid)
They suggest this sighting may be A. acuta after all.
Anthela acuta (Common Anthelid)
Anthela acuta
ibaird
wrote:
6 hrs ago
Thanks a million Julie. That'ss very useful comment, I concur with your views overall. In the absence of better information my usual policy when a detailed view is posited that holds up is to go with it.
Looking at 'Bold Hobern' for both species see below. is that rule borne out by what you see there? (ie at least for one specimen of A. deficiens)?
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=324412
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=192042
Cheers.
Ian Baird
Looking at 'Bold Hobern' for both species see below. is that rule borne out by what you see there? (ie at least for one specimen of A. deficiens)?
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=324412
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=192042
Cheers.
Ian Baird
Anthela acuta
JulieMorgan
wrote:
7 hrs ago
Hi Ian,
I have learned a lot from both you and John and your work on NatureMapr has created a wonderful resource for moth enthusiasts.
To begin, I should say that I am no expert on Anthela. My comments are as a result of my own observations and precious time spent at ANIC learning from people who know a lot more than I do. That said, I also acknowledge that much has happened in the world of moths since that time.
My colleagues in MABA have indicated that Lepidoptera records on ALA are not verified before being posted and so I am cautious when using their records for identification. I look for who has verified the records on iNat as the “wisdom of the crowd” is not always based on knowledge of the species. Looking at the Anthela deficiens records on ALA, the moths posted by Nick Lambert, Desmond Wells and Rebecca Stroud show a different shape to my eye – a boxier shape compared to Anthela acuta.
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/34cfec67-be9e-400c-8604-59244aa250b4#gallery
John Lenagan’s comments in Rebecca Stoud’s identification indicate that there double spot below the dissecting line on the lower wing and the single spot above the line on the upper wing in A. deficiens. These features are present in these 3 specimens. Based on this, I think that John’s moth (and also Lisa H’s from Moruya) are from the Anthela acuta group but I happy to be corrected as there is much to learn in the world of moths. Julie
I have learned a lot from both you and John and your work on NatureMapr has created a wonderful resource for moth enthusiasts.
To begin, I should say that I am no expert on Anthela. My comments are as a result of my own observations and precious time spent at ANIC learning from people who know a lot more than I do. That said, I also acknowledge that much has happened in the world of moths since that time.
My colleagues in MABA have indicated that Lepidoptera records on ALA are not verified before being posted and so I am cautious when using their records for identification. I look for who has verified the records on iNat as the “wisdom of the crowd” is not always based on knowledge of the species. Looking at the Anthela deficiens records on ALA, the moths posted by Nick Lambert, Desmond Wells and Rebecca Stroud show a different shape to my eye – a boxier shape compared to Anthela acuta.
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/34cfec67-be9e-400c-8604-59244aa250b4#gallery
John Lenagan’s comments in Rebecca Stoud’s identification indicate that there double spot below the dissecting line on the lower wing and the single spot above the line on the upper wing in A. deficiens. These features are present in these 3 specimens. Based on this, I think that John’s moth (and also Lisa H’s from Moruya) are from the Anthela acuta group but I happy to be corrected as there is much to learn in the world of moths. Julie
Anthela acuta
ibaird
wrote:
Yesterday
OK, thanks Julie. You are likely to be more familiar with the species than I am. Can you indicate how it's shape differs from A. acuta?
Anthela acuta
Top contributors
- WendyEM 41
- AlisonMilton 29
- Hejor1 27
- jb2602 26
- kasiaaus 23
- PJH123 20
- LisaH 16
- HelenCross 16
- Harrisi 15
- FeralGhostbat 13
Top moderators
- ibaird 280
- donhe 218
- GlennCocking 37
- WendyEM 25
- DianneClarke 24
- MichaelMulvaney 22
- JulieMorgan 14
- KimPullen 13
- MichaelBedingfield 3
- RogerF 3
