Moth Taxon Search
Observation_289746
Gender (optional)
Notes (optional)
Rhypotoses ruptata (Walker, 1862)
Euproctis arenacea Hampson, [1893]; Fauna Br. India (Moths) 1: 476; TL: Sikkim. Pg. 476, # 1074. Text at https://archive.org/details/moths01hamp/page/476/mode/1up?view=theater
Mardara ruficeps Hampson,1896,Fauna Br.India,Moths-4: Pg. 489, #1018a. Text at https://archive.org/details/moths04hamp/page/489/mode/1up?view=theater for female.
Cifuna biundulans Hampson, 1897. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 11 (2). Pg. 294, #996a TL: Khasia Hills
Text at https://archive.org/details/journalofbombayn11189798bomb/page/294/mode/1up?view=theater
Rhypotoses ruptata Walker comb. rev.-Moths of Borneo Vol5 Lymantriidae, Pg. 11, Pl. 9/11-12
https://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-5/nygmiini/nygmiini_14_10.php
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/880799-Rhypotoses-ruptata
GI: There seem to be some minor differences in the marking as described in MoB and seen in iNat. The markings given in FB! 1, and 4 are also not visible. They are for female
and this seems to be male. What are the defining features that confirms its id? I am inclined to leave it at the genus level.
JD : Pls check remarks in Observation_264903 on ruptata vs adela. There is no differentiation given between the two, & we are basing the id only on location.
Euproctis arenacea Hampson, [1893]; Fauna Br. India (Moths) 1: 476; TL: Sikkim. Pg. 476, # 1074. Text at https://archive.org/details/moths01hamp/page/476/mode/1up?view=theater
Mardara ruficeps Hampson,1896,Fauna Br.India,Moths-4: Pg. 489, #1018a. Text at https://archive.org/details/moths04hamp/page/489/mode/1up?view=theater for female.
Cifuna biundulans Hampson, 1897. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 11 (2). Pg. 294, #996a TL: Khasia Hills
Text at https://archive.org/details/journalofbombayn11189798bomb/page/294/mode/1up?view=theater
Rhypotoses ruptata Walker comb. rev.-Moths of Borneo Vol5 Lymantriidae, Pg. 11, Pl. 9/11-12
https://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-5/nygmiini/nygmiini_14_10.php
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/880799-Rhypotoses-ruptata
GI: There seem to be some minor differences in the marking as described in MoB and seen in iNat. The markings given in FB! 1, and 4 are also not visible. They are for female
and this seems to be male. What are the defining features that confirms its id? I am inclined to leave it at the genus level.
JD : Pls check remarks in Observation_264903 on ruptata vs adela. There is no differentiation given between the two, & we are basing the id only on location.