[ncsc-moths] Re: [tn-moths] Sympistis kappa?--Another potential new species for NC

  • From: "J. Merrill Lynch" <jmerrilllynch@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ncsc-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:53:44 -0500

Thanks for the comments.  During the course of photographing moths this
season, I've recorded four species of macros (listed below) that would be
new species for North Carolina, IF verified by specimens.  I've sent photos
of each of these off to various experts whose response was similar to the
one I posted about Sympistis kappa.  In other words, the photographs APPEAR
to represent correct identifications but cannot be verified without specimen
dissection.  So, the conundrum is that without specimens, none of these
species can be added to the official list.  Therefore, my goal for 2011 is
to collect specimens of these moths (if I encounter them again!) along with
others that I suspect may be new state records or represent significant
range extensions.

Papaipema birdi
Papaipema necopina
Lithophane oriunda
Sympistis kappa

Merrill

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Larry McDaniel <larrycmcd@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> My hobby is photographing insects. I haven't collectied any but I might if
> I had good reason. I agree with you that in some cases it would be the
> better thing to. I also don't have a problem with people who collect
> regularly. In fact I am hoping someone will bring specimens to our nature
> center so I can add them to our display. At the same time I can see how
> others may feel that collecting is wrong. I think tn-moths should
> probably use photos of live moths. I would be interested in hearing more
> opinions on this if we can keep it civil.
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:36:41 -0500
>
> Subject: [tn-moths] Sympistis kappa?--Another potential new species for NC
> From: jmerrilllynch@xxxxxxxxx
>
> To: ncsc-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; tn-moths@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: parker.backstrom@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Moth'ers,
>
> I have seen several individuals at my place in Watauga County, both in 2009
> and again this year, of a noctuid in the genus Sympistis that I did not
> recognize.  I sent one of my pics to Bugguide,
> http://bugguide.net/node/view/370837, where it was tentatively identified
> as S. kappa #10066.2.  I also sent this photo to Bo Sullivan, a Smithsonian
> moth researcher, who forwarded my photo to Don LaFontaine, a Canadian
> expert.  Don's response follows:
>
> "This is an unfortunate record because it can’t be positively identified
> and may well be a new record for North Carolina – whatever it is. Most
> likely it is Sympistis kappa, which we have from TN (Wilson Co.), OK, KS, AR
> & IL. It is distinctive in male genitalia but difficult to tell from from S
> infixa [OK, TX, TN (Wilson Co.)] in wing markings. However, in S kappa the
> black line connecting the am and pm lines, and the streaks in the
> subterminal area that extend in toward the reniform spot are usually sharply
> defined in kappa, like the picture, but are usually blurred in infixa. We
> have both species from the same place in TN and they are easily segregated
> there by the wing markings."
>
> I'm curious if anyone on the TN listserve is familiar with this species and
> if there are any observers in Wilson County, TN where both species have been
> recorded.
>
> This also raises the issue concerning the collection of specimens.  Up
> until this year, I have focused my efforts on photographing moths and trying
> to identify them based solely on visual characteristics.  However, there are
> instances such as this case where the moth cannot be positively identified
> without dissection.  I'm not philosophically opposed to the collection of
> specimens, if it results in the advancement of science and knowledge such as
> the verification of a new state record or the discovery of an undescribed
> species.  I bring this up because I wonder what others think about this.  I
> have made the decision to start judiciously collecting some specimens when I
> feel there is a good chance that by doing so I can make a significant
> contribution to our knowledge base.
>
> Is anybody else out there grappling with this?
>
>
> --
> J. Merrill Lynch
> Echo Valley Farm
> Watauga County, NC
> Elevation:  3,400 feet
>



-- 
J. Merrill Lynch
Echo Valley Farm
Watauga County, NC
Elevation:  3,400 feet

Other related posts: