Moth Taxon Search
Observation_286082
Notes (optional)
Schoenotenes synchorda Meyrick, 1908
1) OD : Descriptions of Indian Microlepidoptera. VI. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 18, 437 – 460 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2223119#page/700/mode/1up
2) Catalogue of the type specimens of Microlepidoptera in the British Museum, Vol 3 Pl 106 fig I - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/136528#page/219/mode/1up
3) Records and descriptions of Schoenoteninae from the British Museum, A. Diakonoff, pg 276 - https://repository.naturalis.nl/pub/318925/ZM1974046021.pdf
4) Catalogue of Tortricidae Latreille, 1802 of India, Pathania et al
Similar looking spp. –
Schoenotenes pseudurga Diakonoff, 1960 SE Asia
SS: The OD matches somewhat, as does the poor illustration. How does one separate from Schoenotenes pseudurga Diakonoff, 1960?
JR: Agree that it does look like S. synchorda Meyrick, but where is the OD for S. pseudurga Diakonoff?
Do you have the following literature, please? I am unable to find it and compare-
Diakonoff, A. (1960(. Synopsis of the Schoenotenini, with descriptions of new genera and species
(Lepidoptera, Tortricidae, Chlidanotinae). — Nova Guinea, Zool., 4 : 43-81, figs.
1-50, pl 1
JD : I do not have the OD for pseudurga & the above paper. Diakonoff, 1974 in his paper mentions "Also similar to S. pseudurga Diakonoff, from Sunda Is., but slightly more tawny marked, and with quite distinct genitalia", which is not much of a basis to compare. Robinson et al in Smaller Moths of SE Asia mention the TL of pseudurga includes Burma, hence there is a possibility that this may extend further to NE India, though my observation is from Sikkim.
SS: If we cannot reliably separate the two species, we can either provisionally identify as S. synchorda or at genus level. Let me know what you think.
JD : I think we can provisionally id this as synchorda, with a reference note on pseudurga
GI: I am personally not for uploading anything with a provisional id - we may not remember to correct their ids, or there are so many uploads that we may miss them. Rather than a provisional id uploading as genus makes more sense. This way we will visit this moth when another with the same genus comes up for review. So I suggest we upload this at the genus level
1) OD : Descriptions of Indian Microlepidoptera. VI. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 18, 437 – 460 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2223119#page/700/mode/1up
2) Catalogue of the type specimens of Microlepidoptera in the British Museum, Vol 3 Pl 106 fig I - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/136528#page/219/mode/1up
3) Records and descriptions of Schoenoteninae from the British Museum, A. Diakonoff, pg 276 - https://repository.naturalis.nl/pub/318925/ZM1974046021.pdf
4) Catalogue of Tortricidae Latreille, 1802 of India, Pathania et al
Similar looking spp. –
Schoenotenes pseudurga Diakonoff, 1960 SE Asia
SS: The OD matches somewhat, as does the poor illustration. How does one separate from Schoenotenes pseudurga Diakonoff, 1960?
JR: Agree that it does look like S. synchorda Meyrick, but where is the OD for S. pseudurga Diakonoff?
Do you have the following literature, please? I am unable to find it and compare-
Diakonoff, A. (1960(. Synopsis of the Schoenotenini, with descriptions of new genera and species
(Lepidoptera, Tortricidae, Chlidanotinae). — Nova Guinea, Zool., 4 : 43-81, figs.
1-50, pl 1
JD : I do not have the OD for pseudurga & the above paper. Diakonoff, 1974 in his paper mentions "Also similar to S. pseudurga Diakonoff, from Sunda Is., but slightly more tawny marked, and with quite distinct genitalia", which is not much of a basis to compare. Robinson et al in Smaller Moths of SE Asia mention the TL of pseudurga includes Burma, hence there is a possibility that this may extend further to NE India, though my observation is from Sikkim.
SS: If we cannot reliably separate the two species, we can either provisionally identify as S. synchorda or at genus level. Let me know what you think.
JD : I think we can provisionally id this as synchorda, with a reference note on pseudurga
GI: I am personally not for uploading anything with a provisional id - we may not remember to correct their ids, or there are so many uploads that we may miss them. Rather than a provisional id uploading as genus makes more sense. This way we will visit this moth when another with the same genus comes up for review. So I suggest we upload this at the genus level