Day-flying Moths Research Articles

Butterflies and day-flying moths in a fragmented urban landscape, south-west Western Australia: patterns of species richness

Surveys of butterflies and day-flying moths were conducted at 46 bushland remnants in the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia, between 2001 and 2005. A total of 17 075 individuals was recorded, representing 35 butterfly and 5 day-flying moth species. Individual site species richness varied between one and 27 species. Two main groups of taxa were identified: (i) species that are reliant on remnant native vegetation for breeding and are entirely or predominantly restricted to remnant bushland (resident species or urban avoiders, 27 taxa); and (ii) species that now breed primarily on introduced plants and disperse readily through the urban matrix, but which also visit remnant bushland and sometimes breed there (non-resident species or urban adapters, 13 taxa). Estimated species detectability varied widely between species and seasonally, but for most taxa was consistent across the three years of the study. Peak detectability was strongly related to observed abundance, something that is well known (intuitively), but has rarely been demonstrated (quantitatively). Only one listed endangered species was recorded, the Graceful Sun-moth Synemon gratiosa which was observed in low numbers at six sites. Several species were encountered less frequently, although these have populations outside the region. Few of the surveyed remnants were considered to have an intact butterfly fauna; it is inferred that the majority had lost some or all of their original resident species. The reliance of many species on specific host plants, and the ability of some to adapt to introduced weeds, are important factors in their persistence within remnants. These bushland remnants are effectively habitat islands for butterflies and day-flying moths, and the few remaining species-rich bushlands are therefore of regional importance for conservation of this group. This paper serves as a baseline study against which to monitor any future changes to the butterfly fauna of these remnants.

Conservation of moths in The Netherlands: population trends, distribution patterns and monitoring techniques of day-flying moths

The loss of butterfly diversity in north-western Europe has been studied extensively but much less is known about the status of other macrolepidoptera. The present paper presents results of the research on mainly day-flying larger moths carried out by Dutch Butterfly Conservation in The Netherlands. Research started in 1992 with a public campaign and a mapping programme, leading to an increase in the number of records of macrolepidoptera. Results from the mapping programme on day-flying moths showed a strong general decrease in The Netherlands, comparable with the loss of butterfly diversity. Transect counts have been undertaken since 2000 for a few species and this method is sufficient to measure trends over time if the moth densities are high enough. Another research component was to focus on marshland habitats in The Netherlands. Fifty-five characteristic marshland moth species were selected and the relative abundance of nearly all these species has declined. These trends were compared with four other countries in the Atlantic biogeographical zone. The relative abundance of the majority of marshland moths in The Netherlands was found to be higher than those in other European countries, so that The Netherlands has a special responsibility for the conservation of the moths of its marshes. Moreover, we emphasise that, next to butterflies, moths can be of great use in nature conservation because of their potential significance as indicator species in endangered habitats.

Conservation of moths in The Netherlands: population trends, distribution patterns and monitoring techniques of day-flying moths

Conservation of moths in The Netherlands: population trends, distribution patterns and monitoring techniques of day-flying moths

Traveling across the Treetops

T he cage like, steel gondola lofted by a construction crane swings slowly next to rhe 30meter-high crown of anAnacardium excelsum tree. Purpie flowers from an immense network of vines cover bright green crown. The flowers teem with colorful animals: bees, hummingbirds, butterflies, beetles, and day-flying moths. A meter-long iguana creeps along a nearby branch. All around A. excelsum are orher species of trees, also draped wirh vines, known 35 lianas. The plants come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and orientations rhat aid them in their competition for light. is a frontier of discovery, says Stephen S. Mulkey, a plant ecologist with ehe University of Missouri at St. Louis and a research associate of Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in Panama. makes you wonder why we spent so much time in understory, when action is up here. S. joseph Wright, an STRI research biologist. stands next to Mulkey in gondola, noting crane's ability to put researchers faceto-face with canopy plants and insects. Previously, we'd basically been standing on floor, looking up, or just ignoring what's up here, says Wright. For six years, STRI biologists have conducted crane-based research on what they refer to as the business end of tropical forest-'-the upper canopy. This top layer of leaves and branches is a living boundary between atmosphere and a sea of diverse life. It is a boundary where

Bionomics of Carmenta haematica (Ureta) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) Which Attacks Snakeweeds (Gutierrezia spp) in Argentina

Abstract Adult Carmenta haematica are day-flying moths with orange (female) or clear (male) wings and a wingspan of 20 to 24 mm. Adults mated in bright sunlight. Females lived an average 2.3 days and laid an average 240 eggs each on stems and twigs of the host plant. Only 66% of the eggs hatched, mostly in the 4 h before dawn. Larvae had seven instars and reached ca. 24 mm long when full grown. Larvae entered the plant at the base of twigs or leaves or sometimes directly into the crowns. They were cannibalistic after the second instar and usually only one large larva occurred in a plant in the field. Larger larvae tunneled in the larger roots and made an exit hole in a large stem 5-8 cm above the crown where they pupated; a silken tube often protruded from the exit hole. The life cycle required ca. 139.5 days at 30°C: 15 days for the egg, 107 days for the larva, 16.5 days for the pupa, and 1 day for the adult to reach peak oviposition. Larval survival decreased below 0°C, and all larvae died after 1 day at −15°C. Larvae pupated in midsummer, adults emerged in late summer, and larvae developed during the fall, winter, and spring. The species was mostly univoltine, but the presence of some large larvae and pupae during most months indicated some variation. In the field, larvae infested 20 to 25% of medium-sized or large plants. At three locations of unusually high larval populations, the combined attack by C. haematica, other root borers, and drought killed most plants of Gutierrezia solbrigii Cabrera and Grindelia chiloensis Cabrera.

Book Reviews

Book Reviews

Peachtree Borers in the Home and Commercial Peach Orchard

The peachtree borer, Synanthedon exitiosa (Say), and the lesser peachtree borer, S. pictipes (Grote and Robinson), are the most important pests of peach in the southern United States. The larvae of these day-flying moths mine beneath the bark of the trunk and scaffold limbs of peach trees of all ages. Feeding damage by these larvae weakens trees and decreases productivity. If there is complete girdling of the trees by the larvae, tree death can occur. This document is ENY-691 (formerly ENT-57), one of a series of the Department of Entomology and Nematology, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. First published: December 1985. Revised: November 2003.
 ENY-691/IN489: Peachtree Borers in the Home and Commercial Peach Orchard (ufl.edu)

Migration of day-flying moths through Portachuelo Pass, Rancho Grande, North-central Venezuela

Migration of day-flying moths through Portachuelo Pass, Rancho Grande, North-central Venezuela

B—On the structure of the scent organs in the maleE. core asela

My friend, Professor Sir Edward Poulton, F. R. S., has handed me a copy of Mr. O. H. Latter’s account of his observations on the courtship of the butterflyEuplœa core asela, and the accompanying use of the scent-brushes of the male. We are deeply indebted to Mr. G. M. Henry, of the Colombo Museum, for a supply of material of the species, carefully preserved and packed, from which the sections here described have been made. As will be learned from Mr. Latter’s paper and the references therewith, special scent-organs in male insects are of frequent occurrence and have long been known. The organs inEuplœaare not of an unusual character, but Mr. Latter’s observations are entirely new, and show that the scent-apparatus is used, at least in this species,to attract the female from a distance. This function, which I venture to termtelegamic, has not hitherto been recognized except perhaps in moths of the genusHepialus, in which the action occurs over only very short distances. The scents produced by male insects have been supposed to be rather of an aphrodisiac character, coming into play only when contact, or at least proximity has been attained. Many female moths produce a directive scent, invariably, so far as is at present known, imperceptible to the human sense. Male moths will fly from great distances (experimentally for more than a mile) in response to its stimulus. Such females as have been microscopically examined do not possess special glands for the secretion of these directive odours. The whole hypodermal layer underlying the terminal segments of the abdomen is modified into a secreting epithelium, and the scent appears to be diffused by osmosis. Even among day-flying moths, sight does not appear to be an important factor in the communication of the sexes. In the majority of the butterflies, however, sight seems to be of first importance, though the butterfly’s eye is not more highly developed than is that of most moths. Whilst scent organs of considerable complexity are of continual occurrence in moths, they tend to be of a simpler character in butterflies, being usually in the form of special wing-scales which secrete a scent, frequently perceptible to the human sense. Nothing corresponding with the directive odours of female moths has so far been observed in butterflies, and of those species in which scent organs have been found, they occur only in the males, except when the odours produced are defensive, when they may be found in both sexes, as in the genusHeliconius. A high development of male scent-organs is, however, found in the Danaine butterflies, and especially in the genusAmauris, the species of which have active scentglands in the hind wings and extrusible abdominal brushes. Müller, in 1877, suggested a possible correlation between the brushes and the wing-glands, but it was not until 34 years later that the actual application of the brush to the gland was observed by Lamborn in Africa. A peculiar feature in some species is that a dust is formed by the breaking up of specially secreted fine hairs which pulverize into small particles. This dust may be formed either in the brush, as inAmauris psyttalea, or in the wing-glands, as in those species in which the gland is in the form of a pocket.

British Butterflies and other Insects

THIS is a pretty book, apparently intended rather as a gift-book or for the drawing-room table than for entomologists. Still, entomologists who wish for a little relaxation from their more arduous labours may take it up and find a series of chatty dissertations on various popular aspects of insect life by well-known writers. Anthony Collett writes on “Some English Butterflies,” and G. A. B. Dewar on “The Bee Mind,” “Ghost Moth Evenings,” “The Railway Embankment,” “Butterflies in Bed,” “Pearl Skippers,” “Anax imperator,” and “The Sphinx Moth,” while Richard South contributes “Field Notes on some English Butterflies,” “Day-flying Moths,” and “The Entomologist's Methods,” and Alfred W. Rees and F. P. Smith, respectively, talk about “Humours of Insect Life in October” and “The Makers of Gossamer.” There are about half a dozen coloured illustrations, each representing one or more insects on a flower; perhaps the best is the frontispiece, with two white admiral butterflies perched on honeysuckle, showing the upper and under surfaces of their wings; but why should the chapter on Anax imperator be illustrated by a rather clumsy figure of the female of Libellula depressa, which is not even mentioned?