small to medium sized moth (head slightly out of focus) resting head down inside hollow tree during the day.
No interactions present.
It looks like it might be a caddisfly and not a moth. The colour scheme is very much like Agrypnia varia but I just cannot see the typical caddis wing form at the rear. I think I can see caddis like antennae at the head end, held tightly together.
Edit- had another look and worked out the orientation of the insect! The ridge or roof edge of the wings is leaning to the left. At first I thought it was leaning to the right and it appeared very confusing.
Please read Ian Wallaces comment on these insects here:
It appears to be difficult to seperate Phryganea grandis and P. bipunctata on appearances alone.
The above insect is a very good likeness for the example of P.grandis given in Barnard and Ross 2012 and is very different from the example of P.bipunctata given in the same book. Both pics offered are the females of the 2 species, the above caddis looks like the female of P. grandis.
It's very hard to be certain from this angle, but the degree of speckling, the description as "small to medium sized", and the Scottish location all seem to me to suggest that Agrypnia varia is the more likely identification.
Entomologist and biological recorder
I really don't think this is A. varia. The really tiny head in proportion to the rest of the insect is much more like Phryganea- Agrypnia would have a larger head for its body size.
The breadth of the 'shoulders' immediately behind the tiny head is more Phryganea like. Agrypnia isnt nearly so 'well built' in that department.
The description of small to medium sized can be disregarded as that was relating to moths and not caddis. A medium sized moth would probably be ok for a very large caddis.
These markings at this stage say mottled Phryganea to me but maybe not speckled enough for A.varia. Both Phryganea species are recorded in Scotland although not with the same frequency as further south.
Edit- That large dark 'character' running up the forewing is better for Phryganea than Agrypnia. well marked Agrypnia have bars as opposed to the linear character.
Thanks for the further comments, and having looked again I've come firmly to the conclusion that I'm not at all sure! I've removed my agreement from the Agrypnia ID, and I'm now mostly persuaded that Phrygania is the more likely option, but I'm just not sure enough to formally agree it.
The photo angle does make this one hard to compare with others, but at first it seemed more like my specimens of Agrypnia than it did Phrygania. BUT, the markings on live caddis don't always preserve well in specimens, and also the ones I have are from southern England and I'm not familiar with the range of variation further north, so there's lots of scope for me getting this wrong!
I must admit that on my specimens I can't see any difference in the proportions of the head compared to the body for Agypnia and Phrygania, but again that may be more apparent in living caddis, and on the wing markings I think you're right that Phrygania is a better match.
Having done it last night myself Martin, the only further thing I can suggest is to view the image of the female Phryganea grandis in the book from a similar angle and the significance of the dark linear character I refer to becomes apparent. Sounds silly but it works. The shape of the dark marking on the above insect is fully consistent with the marking on the female grandis in the book(and many other well marked Phryganea) but very different from those of Agrypnia.
Lat/Lng: 56.1754, -4.2892
OS grid ref: NN579004
Inchmahome island in the middle of the Lake of Menteith