S. lubricipedum and D. mendica are there any clear differences

I define it myself as follows: in mendica, the dots form like stripes, as can be seen in the first photo, in lubricipedum, just dots that are more accurate and smaller in size.

And the color of the legs? In the photo, they are clearly different.

In general, there are a lot of things that differ, both legs and antennae. I was just told that they are difficult to distinguish, so I decided to ask about clear and stable signs.

According to assumptions, the butterfly on the left may be Hyphantria cunea, it was removed in 200806. Unfortunately, I don't have it. Are there any cuneiform spots with this distribution ?

Definitely not H. cunea. It is if with spots (very rare), then brown.

to Bad Den:
Perhaps in your area and rarely, and with brown. But for example, in the Crimea, black-dot cunea are common. And the spots are black.
Of course, pure white individuals are more common, but a lot and with varying degrees of black - I have more than once almost half black cunea flew to the lamp, like the one in the photo on leps.it.
In addition, the photo was taken in August. In August, mendica does not fly, but only cunea.

Mendica doesn't have any stripes on her wings. The female has a couple of black dots on the white wings, the abdomen is white, with small black dots, without yellow color. The male mendica is generally smoky gray, you can't confuse it with anyone else.
Also, indeed, mendica is a spring-like species.
Mendika isn't in the pictures. On the left, Hyphanrtia cunea is more likely, and on the right - in general Spilosoma urticae (white rod of antennae).

Thank you, Morozzz.
So often I get confused in the names of species that I have little interest in, that it turns out such a mismatch. There I meant different types of spilosomes - lubricipedum and, probably, urticia are known names, butterflies are similar, so associations and errors occur
in mendica, the wings are shorter and more rounded, there are few dots and they are more nondescript, the wings are more transparent. Lubricipedum has a red abdomen, like other spilosomes, while others have a white one. As far as I remember, the American woman has no black dots on her abdomen, but Mendica has enough of them

Actually, at first I also wanted to find out the difference between lubricipedum and urticea, but it turned out that the differences between the American white butterfly and mendica became clear. As for the white butterfly, or Hyphantria cunea, I can't say for sure, because it is the butterfly that I don't have in the picture above, it flew away.
Here are two more images
220505 and 120505, are they both mendiki?

Pictures:

arct.jpg — (18.25 k)


mend.jpg — (17.39к)

to Bad Den:
Perhaps in your area and rarely, and with brown.

In our area, fortunately, there is no H. cunea at all, so I judge only by literary data and collector's specimens.

Actually, at first I also wanted to find out the difference between lubricipedum and urticea, but it turned out that the differences between the American white butterfly and mendica became clear. As for the white butterfly, or Hyphantria cunea, I can't say for sure, because it is the butterfly that I don't have in the picture above, it flew away.
Here are two more images
220505 and 120505, are they both mendiki?

the top image shows Spilosoma urticae. On the lower one is a male Diaphora mendica.

This post was edited by Morozzz - 08/25/2006 16: 05

Diaphora mendica has no yellow color on the abdomen.

Thank you all! I learned a lot of new things! We often fly white cuneiform birds, this is exactly them, they have a belly without dots, but I did not see the dark ones, the one in the upper picture is the darkest one that arrived.
But it should be S. lubricipedum?

Pictures:

arct.jpg — (26.39к)

similar, sort of.

The male mendica is generally smoky gray, you can't confuse it with anyone else.
Also, indeed, mendica is a spring species.
......
Spilosoma urticae (white rod antennae).

Males of mendica are also white. By the way, this is exactly what sealor has in the photo.
And as for the color of the antenna rod - I spoke with Yu. I. Budashkin about this - he does not consider this feature reliable.

Yes, males of mendica are also white, and lubricipedum and urticae are certainly better compared by genitals. Although in the series, when the butterflies are in sufficient numbers, the differences are clearly visible. So it will immediately be clear where some are and where others are.
With sufficient experience and material, the problem of identifying twin species is minimal.

Although in the series, when the butterflies are in sufficient numbers, the differences are clearly visible. .....
With sufficient experience and material, the problem of identifying twin species is minimal.

I agree! The series is a great thing:- ) It's easier to identify, and the differences are more noticeable.

There has always been such a problem. Well, there are similar butterflies in the collection. There were speculations, but seriously engaged in the genus Spilosoma only this summer. Fortunately, the lamp is good. I caught about fifty of them, spread them out, and it turned out that this year we (the Moscow region) didn't get a single S. urticae. I compared these with those collected earlier and it turned out that about 7 years ago S. urticae prevailed. Here's how.

I also once had a problem with the definition of polar bears. I had mendiki and lubricipedum. I immediately identified the second one, but there was no mendica in the identifier (simple, school). Mendica is clearly different from spilosoma, and as for lubricipedum and urtice - here is what V. DUbatolov wrote about this:
Spilosoma lubricipedum L. (=menthastri Esp.) - the scallops on the antennae
of males are long, short - at least 2-3 times longer than the thickness
of the rod, and large ones are even 5 times longer than the thickness of the rod of the antennae. Usually
, a large number of black spots are developed on the wings.
Spots may also develop on the hindwings. However, often there are forms with a small
number of spots, as well as completely without spots. The front fenders are wider.
Spilosoma urticae Esp . - the scallops on the antennae of males are short, long
2 times longer than the thickness of the rod, and short approximately equal to the diameter
of the rod. This species has no spots on the hind wings (I saw
a single specimen). out of many hundreds with a dark discal spot),
there are often few spots on the anterior ones, but sometimes there are specimens with a large
number of spots on the anterior ones (but not on the posterior ones!) wings. The front
wings are slightly elongated.
And this year I caught a butterfly with a white belly - this is either the American polar bear,or Leucoma salicis. The families are different, but how do you distinguish them from each other? What is a clear sign? Tell me, gentlemen entomologists!

The families are different, but how do you distinguish them from each other? What is a clear sign? Tell me, gentlemen entomologists!

At the family level, I think it is easiest to distinguish by venation.

This post was edited by Bad Den-05.12.2006 10: 03

2. There are many sites on the web with both types of photos, take a look.

Or post a photo and it will be identified here.

"Dynamic pages in the [IMG] code are not allowed" - what is it? images are not uploaded. What did I do wrong?

Sorry, I think I understand. This butterfly:

In my opinion, in the photo Hyphantria cunea is a characteristic yellow "pubescence" from below between the front pair of paws. In addition, volnyanka has black - and-white spotted paws.
It is easier to identify live butterflies sitting in characteristic poses, or already straightened. In addition, the scale is not clear - the American is small, and the Volnyanka is twice as large. Also, it's always a good idea to know the date of your discovery.

Wingspan 30 mm, caught on August 11

Wingspan 30 mm, caught on August 11

Here is cunea it is:-)

But these who do not tell me? Republic of Tatarstan, Vysokogorsky district, May-June


This post was edited by niyaz - 06.01.2013 20: 23

the upper two are Spilosoma lubricipedum, the lower ones are not visible. although they are all in such a state that they can even be confused with Spilarctia luteum

the upper two are Spilosoma lubricipedum, the lower ones are not visible. although they are all in such a state that they can even be confused with Spilarctia luteum

Yes, probably all Spilosoma lubricipedum. Definitely not S. luteum, of which I have a small series, and not Spilosoma urticae, whose wings are narrower. I wondered if Diaphora mendica was among the four. But in my opinion, Mendica's wings are shorter and stocky.

mendica is completely different and the wings and the pattern and the belly http://sungaya.narod.ru/hete/arc/dia_men.htm

mendica is completely different and the wings and the pattern and the belly http://sungaya.narod.ru/hete/arc/dia_men.htm

Yes, that's right, I forgot about the belly completely.

Yes, that's right, I forgot about the belly completely.

Here male D. mendica: differs radically even in the sawyere. Not to mention the abdomen, which is never yellow.