Sighting 4500206
A Gelechioid moth at suppressed
Identification history
| Eupselia iridizona | 12 Jul 2023 | donhe | ||
| Eupselia iridizona | 12 Jul 2023 | ibaird | ||
| Eupselia (genus) | 11 Jul 2023 | donhe | ||
| Unidentified | 11 Jul 2023 | PJH123 |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
Eupselia sp Depressaridae
5 comments
PJH123
wrote:
13 Jul 2023
The latest publication, Moths of the ACT, has this genus in Depressariidae
ibaird
wrote:
13 Jul 2023
OK, not sure whether that's an error?! I will check with the Moths of the ACT authors The Australian Faunal Drectory and the ALA classify Eupselia genus as Hypertrophidae
ibaird
wrote:
13 Jul 2023
Hi Peter,
This is the response I received from Glenn Cocking, lead author of 'Moths in the ACT'
"AFD and INat don’t always follow the latest family taxonomy views, and there isn’t always consensus among taxonomist across all of the families in the first place.
Moths in the ACT follows Ted Edwards’ interpretation of the moth family taxonomy when the book was being designed. He viewed the Hypertrophinae as a subfamily of the Depressariidae family, rather than a family in its own right."
We as moth moderators in Canberra resolved to comply with the taxonomy approach of the AFD and the ALA which after all is the ultimate repository of our observations.
Not sure where this leaves us, but it seems you have some friends among taxonomists!
At least the genus and species are consistent whcih I think is the prioirity,
Cheers,
Ian Baird
This is the response I received from Glenn Cocking, lead author of 'Moths in the ACT'
"AFD and INat don’t always follow the latest family taxonomy views, and there isn’t always consensus among taxonomist across all of the families in the first place.
Moths in the ACT follows Ted Edwards’ interpretation of the moth family taxonomy when the book was being designed. He viewed the Hypertrophinae as a subfamily of the Depressariidae family, rather than a family in its own right."
We as moth moderators in Canberra resolved to comply with the taxonomy approach of the AFD and the ALA which after all is the ultimate repository of our observations.
Not sure where this leaves us, but it seems you have some friends among taxonomists!
At least the genus and species are consistent whcih I think is the prioirity,
Cheers,
Ian Baird
PJH123
wrote:
14 Jul 2023
Ian, thanks for the clarification, yes, I know Ted. I do not always agree with the AFD as I find they sometimes take a long time to “update”. A classic case is the Arctid, Ardices curvata (Donovan, 1805). Dubatolov, 2005 moved Ardices from synonymy with Spilosoma and placed Spilosoma curvata in this revised genus. All Australian publications since including Moths of the ACT have maintained, Spilosoma curvata. While it has taken sometime, I now note that the AFD have all three species, glatignyi, canescens and curvata placed by Dubatolov into Ardices, as being in Ardices; while the ALA still maintains all three in Spilosoma. But I take your point and for the sake of stability of this site I will use the AFD as my reference.
Sighting information
Additional information
- 5mm to 12mm Animal size
Species information
- Eupselia iridizona Scientific name
- A Gelechioid moth Common name
- Not Sensitive
- Local native
- Non-Invasive
- Machine learning
- External link More information
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Confirmed by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
