Rhuma (genus)

I'm will ing to be corrected but I'm not sure wh ythis is not R. argyraspis (male),

Ian, The images of Rhuma argyraspis on BOLD seem to fit the original description. Noting there is no mention of a cell spot, though a few BOLD images have a faint one. The description of the synonym Sterictopsis inconsequens, describes a large irregular cell spot but describes it as black surrounded by grey scales, the opposite to mine. However an image in Moths of the tribe “Pseudoterpnini (Geometridae:Geometrinae): a review of the genera” by Pitkin et al, 2006 is a fair match for my specimen so Ian you are probably correct.

I think the darkly outlined subcostal forewing boomerangs disqualify it for R. argyraspis . I agree it is the unnamed Rhuma AH03 in BOLD.

Check image 41, is Rhuma AH03 an unrecognized R. argyraspis
https://watermark.silverchair.com/j.1096-3642.2007.00287.x.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAA3cwggNzBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggNkMIIDYAIBADCCA1kGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMWdrJodeAz9dPmqRUAgEQgIIDKpsa8PvtWpnonilJrQz2Xg3jNkhcs6J11gpP9mR8va2zGShIfzBCDbWMr7T3-g80zaGVSmAhbXzgRXl52rnlBp92OkFLUI9ZMkNKXVfwAUNVOAmKfbeKoBKB_YXEScH826JUF_ls4K_Qz7I8Of5lsj1z0v2iUVg0JI3XG5Toen65Ndpc7pWPUFa-yhQAV5FeSlmdCkmUsPxbozi7OUUN-DvFdOnOSUWVGEkG-I9_jecpWxrOWdb48u-QQvEEGt3t4wX2v1NN7DpT69L2sidJ1Rh7Q_AyMWRweBkg9zbkkVZuYLx0i_VIGzNkSsINsaBH8fvqSo9Qoy1d5k_dAaczeVENUvuc0-SaF26hJlHcYXp86X24dAbXlgjy6URP-4rF1hZ3fmSL2EsKTBD8KwxFY4Ru0wF3HROKvRXuV3UikD8pBXZVoruj34ne4aXfDQanmmkVx-eVC8XNyncf-rL1rFdEiQmrVUmK8kw-Qpzq6r5Ma4LLlQMWsK2gcIKDfEvnXWVes2gOmF97QQwdNp35EaK647bDNmAIoQTlXYm2yMhJMeQQCdnzlyoGsObN2qWxW6yseTC-EBnrP1YDt8cp-P4SWVOg5GnCANVB7qIYyqGJ3xzMHQVg9pKosyHBLlN0TS6wlJzH2UC7rI49eGUIk1QE_AoQdgOeR0I6kbTHuxRpRQwpBnNDbS7FoUPL-dQUK-GTYaNvsuEVbNW0lEvgO5muZcMbKv09R6vuZt1DX5FpmrT-sb4-6y4lhSUDEL04lErWRmTcfWcNnN4lMzoC87SsyeEaz45XYylvccmZqVgk5U6U2UZlhzDbgYCKX8EnePXkxjQrZfSvqJgXwBMCoSoJFEWIaGF-dbnEXQq-wEMLyfvU1KUKuDXkeRtnsfG13JeAVptmp_c_F2zXpD5kBGjeiNDjElLWcBsoVSZy_JkuZeHNR63nphVApYRksiciX0TKdCX-yZTPnkgcL9Za-5X8-StVAc7N9xbUN2GW4Db7PIcJqyOcIyiSgvu2ODVoOsIVEWZxvVoJADDTgpr5picVB4azpFry10Dz6rCrt2-3fOCL1Psbcb4sSg

I note Moths of Victoria show a photo of a male R. argyraspis as a type specimen attributed to I F Common (1966) Little Desert Victoria which has a boomerang' (grey centre, black edge) 'or a cell spot (see file 1/2 for the species (Part 4 supporting disc). They say the species occurs in the ACT as well. I accept that all the specimens so far identified as R. argyraspis on Canberra Nature Map and on photos on LBH anf Moths of the ACT) lack the boomerang/cell spot but many of thrse are c;early males (judging by the antennae) given that Moths of Victoria show the female has filamentous antennae. Many identified male R. agyraspis on iNaturalist show the boomerang.

Is it safer to leave it to genus

I do not trust community visual IDs of photos on iNat. I do trust DNA ids on BOLD. BOLD says the dna is distinctive enough to flag it as a different species.

I have referred this issue to Glenn Cocking for his opinion.. Glenn has been to ANIC (CSIRO Canberra) and looked at specimens and at his own set specimens in his own collection. He tells me he has more work to do though, and Ill pass on his conclusions when Ireceive them.

Glenn Cocking has studied the ANIC holdings of Rhuma (genus) at CSIRO Canberra in detail, both described and undescribed, on two occasions and concludes, I quote: "The best identification is Rhuma species, not argyraspis." Glenn has also said: 'As well as the named Rhuma, ANIC has three large groups recognised as undescribed species, plus half a dozen small groups."

Thanks for the info Ian.

Glenn''s comments also included the following:
'"Most ANIC specimens have distinct cell marks, the main exception being argyraspis where the mark is faint or absent.
Many of the groups have specimens with light scaled boomerangs surrounded by dark scales. Interestingly, I did not find a specimen where the boomerang was blue under the microscope – either fading of dead specimens removes it, or the photo flashlight brings it out.
I think I can see which group the NatureMpr specimen belongs to, but given the many options and the difficulty of matching the photo to dead set specimens, that’s not reliable."