As the end of the year approaches, I have been compiling my list of moths for 2020. I don't seem to do nearly so well as some others reporting on the blog, and have had a total of about 190 species recorded from running my actinic light trap 71 times here on the outskirts of Marlow. This is my third year of running the trap, and the total last year and the year before were similar.
There remain a few moths which I can't identify, despite having reasonable photos. Several of them, not surprisingly, are pugs. I have written the date each moth was caught underneath its photo. Any assistance in identifying these would be gratefully received.
8 April 20
10 April 20
16 April 20
26 May 20
26 May 20
30 May 20
1 June 20
21 June 20
6 July 20
16 July 20
30 July 20
John Clough, Marlow
Hello John,
ReplyDeleteThe first three Pugs are reasonable easy, being Double-striped (8th April), Brindled (10th April) and Oak-tree (16th April). I suspect the noctuids on 26th May and 30th May are both forms of one of the Marbled Minor species. Of your two micros, the one on 26th May is Anania fuscalis while the other on 1st June is Homoeosoma sinuella. The noctuid on 6th July is Mottled Rustic and the final Pug (30th July) is Maple, while the previous Pug (16th July) may also be Maple but I'm less sure about that one. That just leaves the noctuid on 21st June which might take a little more thought!
Hi John, The one on 30 May looks like Shears to me, with the characteristic marks a little obscured.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think John T may be correct with the 30th May noctuid now that I've appreciated its size (a little too big for a Minor). I'd say that the 21st June noctuid is most likely Dingy Shears.
ReplyDelete...and I suspect the 21 June moth is another Shears - this time the Dingy Shears. Again the characteristic marks in the centre of the wing (described as 'tooth-like' in the WTL guide) are not very clear, but the general wing shape, the extended shape of the oval mark, and the zig-zag sub-terminal line with some central black triangular marks are also typical.
ReplyDeleteHopefully not overlapping again with Dave, but perhaps a question for him: for the 16 July moth is an alternative the Slender Pug? As well as some general features that could fit (but also fit the Maple Pug) I'm impressed by the way that part of the pale central 'U' shaped crossline, into which is 'imbedded' proximally the discal spot, stands out - which is also seen in a number of on-line images of this apparently under-reported Pug.
ReplyDeleteSlender Pug and Maple Pug are two quite similar small moths which fly at the same time and I do struggle with them when they're not fresh, often taking the easy way out and keeping them back for dissection! When they're fresh they should be do-able though, and the discal spot itself is one of the differences (usually just a pin-prick in Maple if it is there at all, slightly more substantial in Slender). I agree this seems to be a possible Slender on that count.
ReplyDeleteWith a wing span of 20mm, surely too big to be one of the 'small' pugs.
ReplyDeleteThe forewing length for the 16 July moth is approx. 9 mm, and the range given by the WTL Guide for Slender or Maple Pug is 8-10 mm - they also classify 'noticeably smaller Pugs' as in this size range. I guess it is a rather subjective term but allows a potential additional criterion for identifying these difficult species!
ReplyDeleteExcellent. My thanks to you all for your valuable comments. That's a few more species to add to my garden list.
ReplyDelete