1 Acronictinae at Melba, ACT
Identification history
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
16 comments
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
ibaird
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
The suggested species name Proteuxoa argonephra is used by iNaturalist for sightings from both WA and eastern Victoria similar to this one, however the AFD which NatureMapr and the AFD uses as its authority for named moths to species level appears to prefer Thorocolpha argonephra which the ALA apparently uses in preference (following a co-authored revision (Hitchcock, Edwards et al 2017 of species sightings including those formerly called P. argonephra (Edwards et al 1996)). from WA. see here:-
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/a9bdb3d1-b3fd-41fa-9058-675c592699d9
So to be consistent with our naming policy I suggest T. argonephra
However moths appearing on the ALA given this name include sightings which vary sigficantly in appearance , including some with a prominent reniform mark on the forewing which is apparently absent here.
I would also observe that this moth looks similar to sightings we have been placing in our working category ''Proteuxoa provisional species 2'' whichi includes sightings simialar to MoV's 'Proteuxoa sp.(5). Part 9 (Marriot 2020))'. MoV does not include P. argonephra as one of its recognised named species in the Proteuxoa genus (Marriott, 2020).
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
Wow Ian, you have done an amazing amount of work on this. Thank you. I agree that the Proteuxoa provisional species 2 sightings are very likely the same moth.
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
Wow Ian, you have done an amazing amount of work on this. Thank you. I agree that the Proteuxoa provisional species 2 sightings are very likely the same moth.
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
Wow Ian, you have done an amazing amount of work on this. Thank you. I agree that the Proteuxoa provisional species 2 sightings are very likely the same moth.
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
Wow Ian, you have done an amazing amount of work on this. Thank you. I agree that the Proteuxoa provisional species 2 sightings are very likely the same moth.
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
Wow Ian, you have done an amazing amount of work on this. Thank you. I agree that the Proteuxoa provisional species 2 sightings are very likely the same moth.
kasiaaus
wrote:
10 Dec 2024
Wow Ian, you have done an amazing amount of work on this. Thank you. I agree that the Proteuxoa provisional species 2 sightings are very likely the same moth.
Location information
- Places Melba, ACT
Sighting information
- 1 Abundance
- kasiaaus Recorded by
-
Collections
Noctuoid moths (except Arctiinae) Moths (Lepidoptera) Insects kasiaaus Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr
Additional information
- 12mm to 25mm Animal size
- Alive / healthy Animal health
Species information
- Thoracolopha argonephra Scientific name
- Acronictinae Common name
- Sensitive
- Rare or uncommon native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- 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
