My comment below was a response to Nuwan regarding Leana's spotting, and wasn't a suggestion towards this spotting. This one does look more like E. dimidialis, although I am not positive. I think Leana's looks most like E. anachoresis, and looking at Dr. Roger's ID of E. accedens, I'm not sure Leana's could be E. accedens, but that is the other possibility.
Hi J. From the existing documents, this really looks like E. anachoresis, same as Leana's spotting, http://www.projectnoah.org/spottings/15940260.
However, the contention on E. anachoresis and Nuwan's ID here, were based on Dr. Roger's ID of Nuwan's moths wherein E. anachoresis is E. dimidialis, and E. dimidialis is E. accedens:
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/211387
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/186382
@J and @Nuwan, what do you suggest we do and follow?
E. anachoresis is also found in Australia, according to BOLDsystems, where organisms are genetically barcoded, making for accurate species IDs. While poor lab procedures can result in an incorrect ID, I don't think that has occurred here.
E. anachoresis:
http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=77093
Hmm... If this is the case, this could mean also that the Eublemma dimidialis pictures in the Australian websites are mis-IDd, and they could be other Eublemma species instead... (??)
http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/acon/dimid.html
http://www.leapfrogoz.com.au/LeapFrogOz/Noctuidae_Acontiinae.html
@Nuwan, what do you think about Eublemma anachoresis, it looks very similar also: http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/acon/anachor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eublemma_anachoresis
http://www.projectnoah.org/spottings/15940260)?
Comments (11)