Can you identify this sighting?
Identification history
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily) | 3 Jan 2025 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma contristis | 26 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Epicoma (genus) | 22 Dec 2024 | donhe | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Anthelidae (family) | 22 Dec 2024 | ibaird | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton | ||
| Unidentified | 21 Dec 2024 | AlisonMilton |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
241 comments
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
22 Dec 2024
I think the regular set of dorsal tufts are more a character of Epicoma than Anthela.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
donhe
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
E. contristis is the only Epicoma species I have seen reported on Casuarinaceae.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
AlisonMilton
wrote:
26 Dec 2024
@WendyEM Wendy, This is the same caterpillar. I didn't realise that Korinne had photographed it as well.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
To me this caterpillar with its bright yellow and brown 'face' looks somewhat dfferent to the larvae shown here:-
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
WendyEM
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
the Epicoma contristis has 3 tone 'face' beige/black/tan. Above larva has 2 tone yellow/red The length of hairs is very different, colour too. None of the other Epicoma or related genus (http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/notodontidae-cats.html) match these features. An Epicoma melanosticta larva figured in 'Caterpillars, Moths and their plants of southern Australia' by McQuillan et al has very short mostly dark hair unlike this above.
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
ibaird
wrote:
2 Jan 2025
These records on the ALA coincide with WendyEM's comment above:-
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/80016edb-5754-4bda-8fd1-d710f3ec615f
Also on iNaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/417806-Epicoma-contristis/browse_photos
And on LBH
https://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/noto/contristis.html
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
donhe
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I see a black edge between the orange and yellow parts of the 'face'. I think the pattern of the head, including the width of the black area, varies with the instar, and the instar here is different from the ones pictured in LBH.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
The hair length also varies with instar so the observed mismatch could just be due to being a different instar again.
The colour of the hairs varies with the angle and intensity of the illumination, and black hairs can look white with direct lighting, and white hairs look black in sillhouette with substantial back lighting, so the colour of the hairs is not a good character for distinguishing between species.
That said, I can find published photos of the larvae of only 13 of the 29 described Australian species of Thaumetopoeinae. This specimen has a more than evens chance of being of one of the other 16 plus undescribed species. Trying to ID it is just conjecture unless Alison can rear it to an adult moth.
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
WendyEM
wrote:
3 Jan 2025
I understand instars vary but I was only comparing later instars which this is. While many 1st instars are super long hairy - what other protection do they have? Changes from one instar to the next, especially later ones are not chalk to cheese (e.g. broadly 3 tone 'face' - 2 tone 'face'/ short hair - long hair) however. A lifetime of looking a caterpillars and > 15yrs of digital photographing them means I am pretty good at interpreting variable lighting. These days I do find, what I expect are mobile phone shots with filters ON, makes interpretation photos VERY hard. I agree that until we can find better evidence Thaumetopoeinae (Noctuidae subfamily)
is the best ID
is the best ID
Sighting information
- 1 Abundance
- AlisonMilton Recorded by
-
Collections
AlisonMilton Unidentified Noctuoid moths (except Arctiinae) Moths (Lepidoptera) Insects Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr
Additional information
- 12mm to 25mm Animal size
- Larvae or nymphs Breeding behaviour
- Alive / healthy Animal health
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
