Moth Taxon Search
Observation_282767
Notes (optional)
Oxymacaria brunneata (Warren, 1896)
Semiothisa brunneata Warren, 1896, Novit. zool. 3: 140. TL: Khasi Hills. Text at https://archive.org/details/novitateszoologi03lond/page/140/mode/1up?view=theater
Distinguished, over and above the difference in outline of forewings, from S. maculosata by the brown costal blotches, the more angulated exterior line and the non-transparency of the white ground-colour.
Similar species
MON Part 6, Pl. 162/20 & 23. Pg. 12 . States that this was treated as a ssp. of maculosata, but is actually closer to penumbrata.
Similar species: Oxymacaria maculosata (Warren, 1896)
Semiothisa maculosata Warren, 1896; Novit. zool. 3: 141; TL: Khasi Hills. Text at https://archive.org/details/novitateszoologi03lond/page/141/mode/1up?view=theater
Distinguished from S. brunneata, to which it bears great superficial resemblance, by the more oblique hindmargin of forewings, scarcely perceptibly elbowed at the end of the third median, and the more produced and acute apex.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1446987-Oxymacaria-maculosata-brunneata
MON Part 6, Pl. 162/25. Pg. 12 .
http://v3.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=1143663 for maculosata
The Forum Herbulot and iNaturalist treat brunneata as a subspecies of maculosata; however, this treatment is flawed, as the type locality for both species is Khasi Hills; hence the two subspecies cannot possibly co-exist in the same landscape. Hence, we will treat brunneata as a valid species, as per MON Part 6.
GI: Agree with ID Oxymacaria brunneata (Warren, 1896). However the reason given for the above statement " The Forum Herbulot and iNaturalist treat brunneata as a subspecies of maculosata;" being flawed may please be based on the lack of published evidence subsequent to what is described in MON Part 6, rather than location/landscape.
SS: Noted and agreed. I could find no published evidence after MON Part 6, to treat brunneata as a subspecies.
JD : Agreed based on images on MON. Another differentiation based on ODs & images is that in maculosata, the 1st blotch (closer to costa) on the FW postmedial is relatively larger as compared to that in brunneata where is it is obscure.
Semiothisa brunneata Warren, 1896, Novit. zool. 3: 140. TL: Khasi Hills. Text at https://archive.org/details/novitateszoologi03lond/page/140/mode/1up?view=theater
Distinguished, over and above the difference in outline of forewings, from S. maculosata by the brown costal blotches, the more angulated exterior line and the non-transparency of the white ground-colour.
Similar species
MON Part 6, Pl. 162/20 & 23. Pg. 12 . States that this was treated as a ssp. of maculosata, but is actually closer to penumbrata.
Similar species: Oxymacaria maculosata (Warren, 1896)
Semiothisa maculosata Warren, 1896; Novit. zool. 3: 141; TL: Khasi Hills. Text at https://archive.org/details/novitateszoologi03lond/page/141/mode/1up?view=theater
Distinguished from S. brunneata, to which it bears great superficial resemblance, by the more oblique hindmargin of forewings, scarcely perceptibly elbowed at the end of the third median, and the more produced and acute apex.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1446987-Oxymacaria-maculosata-brunneata
MON Part 6, Pl. 162/25. Pg. 12 .
http://v3.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=1143663 for maculosata
The Forum Herbulot and iNaturalist treat brunneata as a subspecies of maculosata; however, this treatment is flawed, as the type locality for both species is Khasi Hills; hence the two subspecies cannot possibly co-exist in the same landscape. Hence, we will treat brunneata as a valid species, as per MON Part 6.
GI: Agree with ID Oxymacaria brunneata (Warren, 1896). However the reason given for the above statement " The Forum Herbulot and iNaturalist treat brunneata as a subspecies of maculosata;" being flawed may please be based on the lack of published evidence subsequent to what is described in MON Part 6, rather than location/landscape.
SS: Noted and agreed. I could find no published evidence after MON Part 6, to treat brunneata as a subspecies.
JD : Agreed based on images on MON. Another differentiation based on ODs & images is that in maculosata, the 1st blotch (closer to costa) on the FW postmedial is relatively larger as compared to that in brunneata where is it is obscure.
Observation Reference