Barrens Dagger Moth, Acronicta Albarufa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Lepidoptera of North America 5
Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains, -
Acronicta Euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775) Beobachtung, Kenntnisstand Und Zucht (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)
©Kreis Nürnberger Entomologen; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775) Beobachtung, Kenntnisstand und Zucht (Insecta: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) R u d o l f F r ie d r ic h T a n n e r t Zusammenfassung: Der Verfasser schildert seine Erfahrungen mit Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775). Angesprochen werden auch die aus ein schlägiger Literatur gewonnenen Kenntnisse, sowie Erfahrungen mit verschiedenen erfolgreichen aber auch weniger erfolgreichen Zuchten der Art. Abstract: The author informs about his experiences in raising Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775), especially about the problem to find the right feeding plant for the Caterpillars. Advices in the basic literature proved to be wrong. Key Words: Noctuidae, Acronicta euphorbiae Namen und Verbreitung Nach neuerer Nomenklatur (K a rsholt & Ra zo w sk i , 1996) trägt die Art den im Titel genannten Namen Acronicta euphorbiae ([Den. & Schiff.], 1775.) In K o ch , 1991 heißt sieAcronycta euphorbiae F., in FÖRSTER & W ohlfah rt , 1979, Pharetra euphorbiae Schiff., weitere frühere Benennungen lauteten Apatele euphorbiae Schiff., Acronycta euphrasiae Brahm, Chamaepora euphorbiae F.. Sicher fanden sich noch einige andere. In „Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs“, Band 6, Nachtfalter IV, 1997, lautet der deutsche Name „Wolfsmilch-Rindeneule“ A. euphorbiae ist west-palaearktisch verbreitet. In Europa ist sie nach K. & R. aus nahezu allen Ländern gemeldet. Ob sie in Luxemburg, Ungarn und Griechenland vorkommt ist unbekannt. Allerdings liegen Meldungen aus Belgien und den Niederlanden, sowie aus den Ungarn und Griechenland umgebenden Ländern vor. Daher kann angenommen werden, dass die Art in 31 Luxemburg wie auch©Kreis NürnbergerUngarn Entomologen; und Griechenland download unter www.biologiezentrum.at verbreitet ist. -
TWO NEW SPECIES of MOTHS (NOCTUIDAE: ACRONICTINAE, CUCULLIINAE) from MIDLAND UNITED STATES Since Their Origins, the Ohio Lepidop
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 46(3), 1992, 220-232 TWO NEW SPECIES OF MOTHS (NOCTUIDAE: ACRONICTINAE, CUCULLIINAE) FROM MIDLAND UNITED STATES CHARLES y, COVELL JR. Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292 AND ERIC H. METZLER Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1952 Belcher Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43224 ABSTRACT. Two new species of noctuid moths are described and illustrated. Ac ronicta heitzmani, new species, in the subfamily Acronictinae, is known from Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Ohio. Lithophane joannis, new species, in the subfamily Cucul Iiinae, is known from Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan. Both species are compared with morphologically similar congeners. Additional key words: Acronicta heitzmani, Lithophane joannis, faunal survey. Since their origins, the Ohio Lepidopterists and the Society of Ken tucky Lepidopterists ha ve promoted regional surveys of the Lepidoptera fauna of midland United States. These efforts have resulted in numerous new records and range extensions and in the discovery of several new taxa, The purpose of this paper is to describe and illustrate two recently discovered species of the family Noctuidae. Both apparently are re stricted to midland United States, Acronicta heitzmani, new species, is known from Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Ohio. Lithophane joan nis, new species, is known from Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan. Both species are morphologically distinct from, and sympatric with, con geners, In 1964, J. R, Heitzman collected a series of an unusual Acronicta species in Missouri. The specimens superficially resembled A. fragilis (Guenee) which was not recorded from Missouri. In 1967, the first author collected a specimen of the same species in Kentucky; the second author took the first Ohio specimen in 1975, The specimens were de termined as a possibly undescribed species near A. -
2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory
2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory ........................................................................................... 3 Alaska ... ........................................ ............................................................... 3 LEPIDOPTERISTS Zone 2: British Columbia .................................................... ........................ ............ 6 Idaho .. ... ....................................... ................................................................ 6 Oregon ........ ... .... ........................ .. .. ............................................................ 10 SOCIETY Volume 53 Supplement Sl Washington ................................................................................................ 14 Zone 3: Arizona ............................................................ .................................... ...... 19 The Lepidopterists' Society is a non-profo California ............... ................................................. .............. .. ................... 2 2 educational and scientific organization. The Nevada ..................................................................... ................................ 28 object of the Society, which was formed in Zone 4: Colorado ................................ ... ............... ... ...... ......................................... 2 9 May 1947 and formally constituted in De Montana .................................................................................................... 51 cember -
Moths of Ohio Guide
MOTHS OF OHIO field guide DIVISION OF WILDLIFE This booklet is produced by the ODNR Division of Wildlife as a free publication. This booklet is not for resale. Any unauthorized INTRODUCTION reproduction is prohibited. All images within this booklet are copyrighted by the Division of Wildlife and it’s contributing artists and photographers. For additional information, please call 1-800-WILDLIFE. Text by: David J. Horn Ph.D Moths are one of the most diverse and plentiful HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE groups of insects in Ohio, and the world. An es- Scientific Name timated 160,000 species have thus far been cata- Common Name Group and Family Description: Featured Species logued worldwide, and about 13,000 species have Secondary images 1 Primary Image been found in North America north of Mexico. Secondary images 2 Occurrence We do not yet have a clear picture of the total Size: when at rest number of moth species in Ohio, as new species Visual Index Ohio Distribution are still added annually, but the number of species Current Page Description: Habitat & Host Plant is certainly over 3,000. Although not as popular Credit & Copyright as butterflies, moths are far more numerous than their better known kin. There is at least twenty Compared to many groups of animals, our knowledge of moth distribution is very times the number of species of moths in Ohio as incomplete. Many areas of the state have not been thoroughly surveyed and in some there are butterflies. counties hardly any species have been documented. Accordingly, the distribution maps in this booklet have three levels of shading: 1. -
Barrens Dagger Moth
Barrens Dagger Moth Acronicta albarufa State Status: Threatened Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 tel: (508) 389-6360; fax: (508) 389-7891 Federal Status: None www.nhesp.org Description: The Barrens Dagger is a noctuid moth with blue-gray forewings mottled with black and white, a black basal dash curving towards the costa, a rusty-brown reniform spot, and a small, round orbicular spot, often white with a dark center. The hind wings are white in males and grayish-brown in females. Wingspan is 30-37 mm. Habitat: Xeric, oak-dominated woodland, barrens, and scrub habitats on sandy soil. In Massachusetts, the Barrens Dagger inhabits open-canopy pitch pine-scrub oak barrens, especially scrub oak thickets; also open oak woodland on Martha's Vineyard. Photo by M.W. Nelson Life History: Adult moths fly from late June through early August. Larvae feed from summer into early fall, and pupae overwinter. Scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia) is Adult Flight Period in Massachusetts the primary host plant, though other oak species may also Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec be used. Range: This species is widespread in North America, but populations occur in restricted, disjunct areas. In the East, Threats major populations occur in the Ozark Mountains of • Habitat loss Missouri and Arkansas and the pine barrens of southern • Fire suppression New Jersey and southeastern Massachusetts. • Invasion by exotic plants • Introduced generalist parasitoids • Insecticide spraying • Off-road vehicles • Light pollution Distribution in Massachusetts 1982 - 2007 Based on records in the Natural Heritage Database Updated June 2007 M.W. -
CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties. -
Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... -
Ecological Sustainability Will Probably Always Be Limited by Its Small Size and Fragmented Condition (See Section 3.5)
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2011 Terrestrial Species Viability Evaluation for The Uwharrie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Requirements in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) ............................. 1 3.0 Ecosystem Diversity ..................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Spatial Scales for Ecosystem Diversity ................................................................... 4 3.2 Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity ................................................................... 7 3.3 Range of Variation .................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Current Condition and Trend of Ecosystem Characteristics and Status of Ecosystem Diversity ..................................................................................................... 15 3.5 – Risks to Selected Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity ................................... 20 3.6 Recommended Forest Plan Components ............................................................... 21 3.7 Assessing effects of Forest Plan alternatives on viability .................................... -
REPORT on APPLES – Fruit Pathway and Alert List
EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 5 - REPORT on APPLES – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Wistermann A, Steffen K, Grousset F, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/107o25ccc1b2c DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background on apple .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Data on production and trade of apple fruit ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Pathway ‘apple fruit’ ..................................................................................................................................... -
INDEX for VOLUME 52 (New Names in Boldface)
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 52(4). 1998, 388- 401 INDEX FOR VOLUME 52 (new names in boldface) 2-methyloctadecane. 356 Amblyscirtes, 237, 240 fimbriata pallida, 54 Abaeis nicippe, 57 jluonia, 54 Acacia farnesiana, 215 folia, 54 Acanthaceae, 74, 107,215 patriciae, 54 Acer rubrum, 128 raphaeli, 54 Aceraceae, 128 tolteca tolteca, 54 AchaZarus, 236, 240 Ampelocera hottleii, 109 casica,50 Anaea, 239, 242 toxeus,50 aidea, 62 Achlyodes, 240 Anartia, 242 busirus heros, 52 amathea colima, 59 selva , .52 Jatrophe, 25 Acrodipsas illidgei, 139 Jatrophe luteipicta, 59 Acronicta albarufa, 381 Anastnls adaptation, 207 robigus, 52 Adelia triloba, 338 sempiternus sempiternus, 52 Adelotypa eudocia, 66 Anatrytone, 237 Adelpha, 239 mazai,54 basiioicies has i/o ides , 62 Anchistea virginica, 128 celerio diademata , 62 Ancyloxypha, 240 fessonia fessonia , 62 arene,54 iphiclus massilides, 62 Anemeca ehrenbergii, 60 ixia leucas, 62 Annonaceae, 107 leuceria leuceria, 62 Anteos, 241 naxia epiphicla, 62 clorinde nivifera, 57 phylaca phyiaca, 62 maerula lacordairei , 57 serpa massilia, 62 Anteros carausius carausius, 65 Adhemarius gannascus, 110 Anthanassa, 239 ypsilon, 11 0 alexon alexon, 60 Aegiceras corniculatum, 141 ardys anlys, 60 Aellopos pto/yea arrUltor, 60 ceculus, 111 sitalces cortes, 60 clavi pes , III texana texana, 60 fadus , III tulcis, 60 Aeshnidae, 137 Antlwcharis Aethilla lavochrea, 52 cardamines, 156 Agathymus rethon, 55 euphenoid~s, 1.56 Aglais urticae, 156 Anthoptus insignis, 53 Agraulis Antig()nus vanillae, 25 emorsa,52 vanillae incarnata, -
Litchfield County
A County Report of Connecticut's Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species Litchfield County Amphibians Scientific Name Common Name Protection Status Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson salamander "complex" SC Ambystoma laterale Blue-spotted salamander E/SC Gyrinophilus porphyriticus Northern spring salamander T Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy SC Plethodon glutinosus Northern slimy salamander T Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog SC Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern spadefoot E Birds Scientific Name Common Name Protection Status Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk T Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk E Aegolius acadicus Northern saw-whet owl SC Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SC* Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow E Asio otus Long-eared owl E Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper E Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern E Buteo platypterus Broad-winged hawk SC Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will SC Circus hudsonius Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) E Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren E Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink SC Empidonax alnorum Alder flycatcher SC 6/23/2021 1 Litchfield County Birds Scientific Name Common Name Protection Status Eremophila alpestris Horned lark E Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon T Falco sparverius American kestrel SC Gallinula galeata Common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) E Gavia immer Common loon SC Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern T Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed woodpecker E Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow SC Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed