Image
Gender (optional)
Life stage
Email (of contributor)
sanjay.sondhi1@gmail.com
Notes (optional)
Meganola scriptoides Holloway, 2003
Meganola scriptoides Holloway, 2003, The Moths of Borneo 18: 27, pl.1, figs 21, 41. Type-locality: Borneo.
László, G. 2016. A taxonomic and zoogeographical survey of the Meganola Dyar, 1898 generic complex (Lepidoptera, Nolidae, Nolinae) based on the Palaearctic and Oriental species PhD Thesis : 1-125, pl. 1-6. Pg. 73, Fig. 30.
https://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-18/nolinae/nolinae_10_3.php
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/630705-Meganola-scriptoides
Similar species:
Meganola scripta and Meganola strigivena
GI: 1. Correction -László, G. 2016. paper- the text and genitalia are on page 74 & 75. with genitalia figs on page 74 -figs 54& 55 of the M&F genitalia respectively.
2.Although the external features do distinguish it from M scripta, according to László, it is the unique genitalia that is the ultimate diagnostic feature. Would you be dissecting this specimen and uploading the genitalia figures? Holloway also refers to the differences in genitalia.
3. The iNaturalist images are most probably not of scriptoides; also they are not research grade uploads, show some differences from your upload.
4. The type locality is Borneo. So then is this a new range extension record?
Agree that it is most likely to be Meganola scriptoides Holloway, 2003. Adding genitalia images would strengthen the identification.
RR: Agree with Meganola scriptoides
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/304678055
Meganola scriptoides Holloway, 2003, The Moths of Borneo 18: 27, pl.1, figs 21, 41. Type-locality: Borneo.
László, G. 2016. A taxonomic and zoogeographical survey of the Meganola Dyar, 1898 generic complex (Lepidoptera, Nolidae, Nolinae) based on the Palaearctic and Oriental species PhD Thesis : 1-125, pl. 1-6. Pg. 73, Fig. 30.
https://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-18/nolinae/nolinae_10_3.php
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/630705-Meganola-scriptoides
Similar species:
Meganola scripta and Meganola strigivena
GI: 1. Correction -László, G. 2016. paper- the text and genitalia are on page 74 & 75. with genitalia figs on page 74 -figs 54& 55 of the M&F genitalia respectively.
2.Although the external features do distinguish it from M scripta, according to László, it is the unique genitalia that is the ultimate diagnostic feature. Would you be dissecting this specimen and uploading the genitalia figures? Holloway also refers to the differences in genitalia.
3. The iNaturalist images are most probably not of scriptoides; also they are not research grade uploads, show some differences from your upload.
4. The type locality is Borneo. So then is this a new range extension record?
Agree that it is most likely to be Meganola scriptoides Holloway, 2003. Adding genitalia images would strengthen the identification.
RR: Agree with Meganola scriptoides
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/304678055
Name for copyright (do not include copyright symbol)
Sanjay Sondhi
Location (type location name here, or create a new location below under "Choose on the map")
HighLighted Contributions
No
Species Node
Overwrite img
Organism
Butterfly
Moth Taxon search:
Month
September
Year
2022
Day
6
Choose copyright license
Copyrighted (all rights reserved)