Moth Taxon Search
Observation_255183
Notes (optional)
Dichocrocis plenistigmalis (Warren, 1895)
Pachybotys plenistigmalis Warren, 1895. Ann. Nat. Hist. 16: 477. TL: Khasi Hills. Text at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/81045#page/499/mode/1up
Hampson, FBI, Vol. 4, pg. 309, # 4903.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/892424-Dichocrocis-plenistigmalis
GI: Agree with ID Dichocrocis plenistigmalis (Warren, 1895)
JD : Not certain on this, this observation does not fully match the description by Warren or that of Hampson in MOI. Refer to these notes by Hampson - "FW with reddish brown suffusion on basal area, & LARGE patches at middle & end of cell extending almost to COSTA" , " the apical area YELLOWER" . There also no mentions of the prominent whitish spot in cell. iNaturalist has two different sets of observations - these ones are much more closer to the OD & Hampson - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/56912659, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/62390872
SS: Yes, I do agree with what you state, ie. Warren OD and Hampson are closer to the the set of observations which have dark patches on the FW around the white cell spot. I also notice that the individuals that do not have the dark suffusion have longer, more pointed abdomens (males?), while the ones with dark suffusion have shorter and thicker abdomens (females?). Neither Warren nor Hampson mention sex, so I do imagine their description is probably of the female. Obviously, this is just conjecture at this stage, until we examine specimens. Do we publish with this note. Or just park it?
Also see https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/collections-online#/item/oum-catalogue-391697. At least one individual, the last one in the series does not have the dark suffusion.
JD : basis the collections, yes. Either these are variations or these are different genders
Pachybotys plenistigmalis Warren, 1895. Ann. Nat. Hist. 16: 477. TL: Khasi Hills. Text at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/81045#page/499/mode/1up
Hampson, FBI, Vol. 4, pg. 309, # 4903.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/892424-Dichocrocis-plenistigmalis
GI: Agree with ID Dichocrocis plenistigmalis (Warren, 1895)
JD : Not certain on this, this observation does not fully match the description by Warren or that of Hampson in MOI. Refer to these notes by Hampson - "FW with reddish brown suffusion on basal area, & LARGE patches at middle & end of cell extending almost to COSTA" , " the apical area YELLOWER" . There also no mentions of the prominent whitish spot in cell. iNaturalist has two different sets of observations - these ones are much more closer to the OD & Hampson - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/56912659, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/62390872
SS: Yes, I do agree with what you state, ie. Warren OD and Hampson are closer to the the set of observations which have dark patches on the FW around the white cell spot. I also notice that the individuals that do not have the dark suffusion have longer, more pointed abdomens (males?), while the ones with dark suffusion have shorter and thicker abdomens (females?). Neither Warren nor Hampson mention sex, so I do imagine their description is probably of the female. Obviously, this is just conjecture at this stage, until we examine specimens. Do we publish with this note. Or just park it?
Also see https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/collections-online#/item/oum-catalogue-391697. At least one individual, the last one in the series does not have the dark suffusion.
JD : basis the collections, yes. Either these are variations or these are different genders