Sighting 4409833
A Cosmet moth at Hackett, ACT
Identification history
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | ibaird | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 | ||
| Macrobathra desmotoma | 25 Nov 2021 | jb2602 |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
95 comments
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I don't know. I will refer the question to Glenn Cocking. The ALA says M. aphristis is found in WA but that is not borne out by the Bold Systems 4 distribution.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
ibaird
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
Lepidoptera Butterfly House says the thorax is white in M. aphristis and shows it is not completely so in a photo of a set specimen of M. desmotoma. A difference may be clear in set moths (see LBH website), but less help in live specimens I expect.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
donhe
wrote:
25 Nov 2021
I do not understand why Meyrick, in describing M. aphristis in 1889, made no mention of its similarity to M. desmotoma which he described in 1886. I suspect he had forgotten about his former description, and that M. aphristis is a synonym of M. desmotoma.
Location information
- Coordinates 149.172475-35.261658
- Maps Mount Ainslie
- Places Hackett, ACT
Sighting information
- At least 1 Abundance
- 23 Nov 2021 03:55 PM Recorded on
- jb2602 Recorded by
-
Collections
Insects Curved-horn moths (all Gelechioidea except Oecophoridae) Moths (Lepidoptera) jb2602 Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr
Additional information
- 5mm to 12mm Animal size
Species information
- Macrobathra desmotoma Scientific name
- A Cosmet moth Common name
- Not Sensitive
- Local native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Up to 804.5m Recorded at altitude
- Machine learning
- External link More information
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
