JasonNewton's picture


Observed: 10th September 2013 By: JasonNewtonJasonNewton’s reputation in InvertebratesJasonNewton’s reputation in InvertebratesJasonNewton’s reputation in Invertebrates
Species interactions

No interactions present.


nightfly's picture

Agreeing truncata as the long

Agreeing truncata as the long projection of citrata on the rear edge of the crossband isnt there. Waring says this is the most reliable way to seperate the species, the primary way. If it isnt now accepted then Im off the mark (again) but the projection on citrata is much longer than the above.

Please correct me if what Waring says bout the upperside markings isnt now accepted.


Ardea's picture

Cathal/Jason, checked the

Cathal/Jason, checked the aforementioned text and now agree truncata.

nightfly's picture

Hi Brian, There are many

Hi Brian,

There are many citrata/truncata obs on iSpot which seem to be determinable to species on the basis of the same bit of text but it seems to be one thing that is avoided, ie bringing it to species even when it appears obvious which one it is.

I do think many of them are determinable, indeed some of them seem quite clear. I am not an expert but Ive checked the underside crossline on quite a number of these moths and most times the degree of angle in the crossline is decisive and complements the apparent identity of the moth from the upperside markings. On occasion, in my experience the sharpness of the angle below is inconclusive and could be either. More often than not as far as I can see citrata has quite an angle to confirm the ID.

Following looking at many aggregate IDs on iSpot, the info in Waring just didnt seem to agree with the policy of avoiding being specific to species in a great many cases when only the upperside view was available.

Im going out on a limb a bit but my personal experience is that upperside markings are reliable in the majority of cases and certainly for many of those IDed as aggregates on iSpot.