Nota Lepidopterologica
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Species List
1 of 16 Claypits 20/09/2021 species list Group Taxon Common Name Earliest Latest Records acarine Aceria macrorhyncha 2012 2012 1 acarine Aceria nalepai 2018 2018 1 amphibian Bufo bufo Common Toad 2001 2018 6 amphibian Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt 2001 2018 5 amphibian Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt 2001 2001 1 annelid Hirudinea Leech 2011 2011 1 bird Acanthis cabaret Lesser Redpoll 2013 2013 1 bird Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge Warbler 2001 2011 2 bird Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed Tit 2011 2014 2 bird Alcedo atthis Kingfisher 2020 2020 1 bird Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 2013 2018 4 bird Anser Goose 2011 2011 1 bird Ardea cinerea Grey Heron 2013 2013 1 bird Aythya fuligula Tufted Duck 2013 2014 1 bird Buteo buteo Buzzard 2013 2014 2 bird Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch 2011 2014 5 bird Chloris chloris Greenfinch 2011 2014 6 bird Chroicocephalus ridibundus Black-headed Gull 2014 2014 1 bird Coloeus monedula Jackdaw 2011 2013 2 bird Columba livia Feral Pigeon 2014 2014 1 bird Columba palumbus Woodpigeon 2011 2018 8 bird Corvus corax Raven 2020 2020 1 bird Corvus corone Carrion Crow 2011 2014 5 bird Curruca communis Whitethroat 2011 2014 4 bird Cyanistes caeruleus Blue Tit 2011 2014 6 bird Cygnus olor Mute Swan 2013 2014 4 bird Delichon urbicum House Martin 2011 2011 1 bird Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting 2013 2014 2 bird Erithacus rubecula Robin 2011 2014 7 bird Falco peregrinus Peregrine 2013 2013 1 bird Falco tinnunculus Kestrel 2010 2020 3 bird Fringilla coelebs Chaffinch 2011 2014 7 bird Gallinula chloropus Moorhen 2013 -
Climate Change and Conservation of Orophilous Moths at the Southern Boundary of Their Range (Lepidoptera: Macroheterocera)
Eur. J. Entomol. 106: 231–239, 2009 http://www.eje.cz/scripts/viewabstract.php?abstract=1447 ISSN 1210-5759 (print), 1802-8829 (online) On top of a Mediterranean Massif: Climate change and conservation of orophilous moths at the southern boundary of their range (Lepidoptera: Macroheterocera) STEFANO SCALERCIO CRA Centro di Ricerca per l’Olivicoltura e l’Industria Olearia, Contrada Li Rocchi-Vermicelli, I-87036 Rende, Italy; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Biogeographic relict, extinction risk, global warming, species richness, sub-alpine prairies Abstract. During the last few decades the tree line has shifted upward on Mediterranean mountains. This has resulted in a decrease in the area of the sub-alpine prairie habitat and an increase in the threat to strictly orophilous moths that occur there. This also occurred on the Pollino Massif due to the increase in temperature and decrease in rainfall in Southern Italy. We found that a number of moths present in the alpine prairie at 2000 m appear to be absent from similar habitats at 1500–1700 m. Some of these species are thought to be at the lower latitude margin of their range. Among them, Pareulype berberata and Entephria flavicinctata are esti- mated to be the most threatened because their populations are isolated and seem to be small in size. The tops of these mountains are inhabited by specialized moth communities, which are strikingly different from those at lower altitudes on the same massif further south. The majority of the species recorded in the sub-alpine prairies studied occur most frequently and abundantly in the core area of the Pollino Massif. -
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, -
Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia. -
Redalyc.Checklist of the Genus Eugnorisma Boursin, 1946 of Iran with New Records and Distributional Data (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología ISSN: 0300-5267 [email protected] Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterología España Rabieh, M. M.; Seraj, A. A.; Gyulai, P.; Esfandiari, M. Checklist of the genus Eugnorisma Boursin, 1946 of Iran with new records and distributional data (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae, Noctuinae) SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología, vol. 41, núm. 163, septiembre, 2013, pp. 399-413 Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterología Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45529269018 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative 399-413 Checklist of the Eugno 4/9/13 12:16 Página 399 SHILAP Revta. lepid., 41 (163), septiembre 2013: 399-413 eISSN: 2340-4078 ISSN: 0300-5267 Checklist of the genus Eugnorisma Boursin, 1946 of Iran with new records and distributional data (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae, Noctuinae) M. M. Rabieh, A. A. Seraj, P. Gyulai & M. Esfandiari Abstract A checklist of 9 species and 4 subspecies of the genus Eugnorisma Boursin, 1946, in Iran, with remarks, is presented based on the literature and our research results. Furthermore 1 species and 4 subspecies are discussed, as formerly erroneously published taxons from Iran, because of misidentification or mislabeling. Two further subspecies, E. insignata leuconeura (Hampson, 1918) and E. insignata pallescens Christoph, 1893, formerly treated as valid taxons, are downgraded to mere form, both of them occurring in Iran. New data on the distribution of some species of this genus in Iran are also given. -
Moths of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
MOTHS OF UMATILLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: Results from 10 sites Sampled May 22-23, 2017 Dana Ross 1005 NW 30th Street Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 758-3006 [email protected] SUMMARY Macro-moths were sampled from the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge for a third time 22-23 May, 2017 as part of an ongoing pollinator inventory. Blacklight traps were deployed for a single night at ten sites representative of major plant communities in the McCormack and Paterson Units. A grand total of 331 specimens and 36 moth species were sampled. Of those, 17 species (47%) were documented from the refuge for the first time. In a somewhat larger geographical context, 21 species were recorded for the first (8), second (7) or third (6) time from Morrow County, Oregon while 4 species were documented for the first (1) or second (3) time from Benton County, Washington. INTRODUCTION National Wildlife Refuges protect important habitats for many plant and animal species. Refuge inventories have frequently included plants, birds and mammals, but insects - arguably the most abundant and species-rich group in any terrestrial habitat - have largely been ignored. Small size, high species richness and a lack of identification resources have all likely contributed to their being overlooked. Certain groups such as moths, however, can be easily and inexpensively sampled using light traps and can be identified by regional moth taxonomists. Once identified, many moth species can be tied to known larval hostplant species at a given site, placing both insect and plant within a larger ecological context. Moths along with butterflies belong to the insect Order Lepidoptera. -
Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist
Big Creek Lepidoptera Checklist Prepared by J.A. Powell, Essig Museum of Entomology, UC Berkeley. For a description of the Big Creek Lepidoptera Survey, see Powell, J.A. Big Creek Reserve Lepidoptera Survey: Recovery of Populations after the 1985 Rat Creek Fire. In Views of a Coastal Wilderness: 20 Years of Research at Big Creek Reserve. (copies available at the reserve). family genus species subspecies author Acrolepiidae Acrolepiopsis californica Gaedicke Adelidae Adela flammeusella Chambers Adelidae Adela punctiferella Walsingham Adelidae Adela septentrionella Walsingham Adelidae Adela trigrapha Zeller Alucitidae Alucita hexadactyla Linnaeus Arctiidae Apantesis ornata (Packard) Arctiidae Apantesis proxima (Guerin-Meneville) Arctiidae Arachnis picta Packard Arctiidae Cisthene deserta (Felder) Arctiidae Cisthene faustinula (Boisduval) Arctiidae Cisthene liberomacula (Dyar) Arctiidae Gnophaela latipennis (Boisduval) Arctiidae Hemihyalea edwardsii (Packard) Arctiidae Lophocampa maculata Harris Arctiidae Lycomorpha grotei (Packard) Arctiidae Spilosoma vagans (Boisduval) Arctiidae Spilosoma vestalis Packard Argyresthiidae Argyresthia cupressella Walsingham Argyresthiidae Argyresthia franciscella Busck Argyresthiidae Argyresthia sp. (gray) Blastobasidae ?genus Blastobasidae Blastobasis ?glandulella (Riley) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.1) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.2) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.3) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.4) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.5) Blastobasidae Holcocera (sp.6) Blastobasidae Holcocera gigantella (Chambers) Blastobasidae -
Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats a Symposium
Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats A Symposium y Edited b Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-145 DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. Papers published in these proceedings were submitted by authors in electronic media. Some editing was done to ensure a consistent format. Authors are responsible for content and accuracy of their individual papers and the quality of illustrative materials. Cover photos: Large photo: Craig W. Stihler; small left photo: Joseph S. Johnson; small middle photo: Craig W. Stihler; small right photo: Matthew J. Clement. December 2011 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-eared Bats: A Symposium Athens, Georgia March 9–10, 2010 Edited by: Susan C. Loeb U.S Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station Michael J. Lacki University of Kentucky Darren A. Miller Weyerhaeuser NR Company Sponsored by: Forest Service Bat Conservation International National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Offield Family Foundation ContEntS Preface . v Conservation and Management of Eastern Big-Eared Bats: An Introduction . 1 Susan C. Loeb, Michael J. Lacki, and Darren A. Miller Distribution and Status of Eastern Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus Spp .) . 13 Mylea L. Bayless, Mary Kay Clark, Richard C. Stark, Barbara S. -
Conservation Assessment for the Kansan Spikerush Leafhopper (Dorydiella Kansana Beamer)
Conservation Assessment For The Kansan spikerush leafhopper (Dorydiella kansana Beamer) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region January 11, 2005 James Bess OTIS Enterprises 13501 south 750 west Wanatah, Indiana 46390 This document is undergoing peer review, comments welcome This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 1 NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY ..................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES....................................................................................................... -
Exposing the Structure of an Arctic Food Web Helena K
Exposing the structure of an Arctic food web Helena K. Wirta1,†, Eero J. Vesterinen2,†, Peter A. Hamback€ 3, Elisabeth Weingartner3, Claus Rasmussen4, Jeroen Reneerkens5,6, Niels M. Schmidt6, Olivier Gilg7,8 & Tomas Roslin1 1Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Latokartanonkaari 5, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland 2Department of Biology, University of Turku, Vesilinnantie 5, FI-20014 Turku, Finland 3Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 4Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, DK–8000 Aarhus, Denmark 5Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 11103, 9700 CC Groningen, The Netherlands 6Arctic Research Centre, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark 7Laboratoire Biogeosciences, UMR CNRS 6282, Universite de Bourgogne, 6 Boulevard Gabriel, 21000 Dijon, France 8Groupe de Recherche en Ecologie Arctique, 16 rue de Vernot, 21440 Francheville, France Keywords Abstract Calidris, DNA barcoding, generalism, Greenland, Hymenoptera, molecular diet How food webs are structured has major implications for their stability and analysis, Pardosa, Plectrophenax, specialism, dynamics. While poorly studied to date, arctic food webs are commonly Xysticus. assumed to be simple in structure, with few links per species. If this is the case, then different parts of the web may be weakly connected to each other, with Correspondence populations and species united by only a low number of links. We provide the Helena K. Wirta, Department of Agricultural first highly resolved description of trophic link structure for a large part of a Sciences, University of Helsinki, Latokartanonkaari 5, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland. high-arctic food web. -
A Revision of the Xestia (Radddea) Alexis
Zootaxa 3590: 51–62 (2012) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EDCF20FD-2E07-416C-AE2D-7260E09D5B05 A revision of the Xestia (Radddea) alexis (Kozhanchikov, 1928) species-group with a checklist of subgenus Raddea Alphéraky, 1892 and description of brachipterous females (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Noctuinae) VLADIMIR S. KONONENKO1, ANTON V. VOLYNKIN2 & ALEXEI YU. MATOV3 1Laboratory of Entomology, Institute of Biology and Soil Science Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, RF-690022 Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 2Tigirek State Nature Reserve, Nikitina str. 111, RF-656049, Barnaul, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 3Laboratory of Entomology, Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences RF-199034 Sankt-Petersburg, Russia. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract The subgenus Raddea Alphéraky, 1892 of the genus Xestia Hübner, 1818 is reviewed. A checklist of 29 described species is presented, with 26 new combinations (comb. n.) introduced. Two taxa, Xestia (Raddea) alexis (Kozhanchikov, 1928) and Xestia (Raddea) herrichschaefferi (Alphéraky, 1895) are revised, and three new synonyms are introduced (X. alexis (Kozhanchikov, 1928) = Estimata oschi Kozhanchikov, 1937, syn. n.; = Estimata militzae Kozhanchikov, 1937 syn. n.; Protolampra sobrina (Duponchel, 1843) = Estimata dailingensis Chen, 1984, syn. n.). The name alexis Kozhanchikov, 1937 is recognized as unjustified emendation. Lectotypes for X. alexis and X. herrichschaefferi are designated; brac- hypterous females for X. alexii and X. herrichschaefferi are described. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Noctuinae, Xestia, Raddea, Estimata, taxonomic notes, new synonymy, new com- bination, Russia, South Siberia Introduction Xestia Hübner, 1818 (type-species Noctua ochreago Hübner, 1790) is the largest genus of the tribe Noctuini (Noctuidae) with about 200 species occurring around the World. -
Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve
SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 159 SURVEY OF LEPIDOPTERA OF THE WAINWRIGHT DUNES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Doug Macaulay Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159 Project Partners: i ISBN 978-1-4601-3449-8 ISSN 1496-7146 Photo: Doug Macaulay of Pale Yellow Dune Moth ( Copablepharon grandis ) For copies of this report, visit our website at: http://www.aep.gov.ab.ca/fw/speciesatrisk/index.html This publication may be cited as: Macaulay, A. D. 2016. Survey of Lepidoptera of the Wainwright Dunes Ecological Reserve. Alberta Species at Risk Report No.159. Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, AB. 31 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................