Noctuidae:Acronictinae:Acronicta

Moma alpium, 24.07.2005


This post was edited by AntSkr - 10/14/2007 10: 08

Good selection.
I will add from myself: Acronycta megacephala
M. O., Odintsovo district, D. Yudino, September 2005.

Pictures:

megacephala.jpg — (121.92к)

Vologda region, Kaduysky district, Andogskiye selo, Pakino village, August 2007
Acronicta tridens (1)
Acronicta auricoma (2)
Acronicta leporina (3)
Panthea coenobita(4) not strelchatka , but still....I looked at fifty Christmas trees to find her

Pictures:

3...JPG — (135.1 k)


2...JPG — (141.46 k)


1...JPG — (138.25 k)

Well done, Nico!
I was too lazy to buy a digital camera just in the fall, so I'll have to wait for next season.
And I was looking for a worm from Panthea coenobita, but alas ... Well Done

And here are some butterflies. All of them are grown from caterpillars found in August 2004, all in the same place, came out of pupae in winter.

Pictures:

Moma_alpium.jpg — (152.11 k)


Acronicta_cuspis.jpg — (152.13к)


Acronicta_strigosa.jpg — (134.04к)


Acronicta_auricoma.jpg — (150.87к)

these are grown from caterpillars found in August 1997 in the Volga region. Sheksninsky district. Vysokovo, however straightened not autumn holoso

Pictures:

Acronicta_psi.jpg — (153.48к)


Acronicta_leporina.jpg — (130.79к)


Acronicta_rumicis_.jpg — (137.83к)


Acronicta_alni.jpg — (133.38к)


Acronycta_megacephala.jpg — (150.68 k)

Ishsho one goose

Pictures:

Acronicta_psi.jpg — (139.54к)

Hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!! Panthea coenobita hatched. Spread it out. If it dries up, I'll post a photo.

Hello everyone!!!

I join the congratulations!!!!

Here's more in addition to the ones already posted:

Acronicta cinerea (=abscondita)

Acronicta vulpina leporella

Poliobrya umovii

Simyra nervosa

and a couple of pantheins (still related):

Colocasia coryli

Panthea coenobita

It hatched the other day

Pictures:

Acronicta_tridens.jpg — (130.78к)

Nico, judging by the photo, you have bred Acronicta psi

This is exactly Acronicta tridens, because the butterfly is derived from the caterpillar, the photo of which is posted above, there can be no mistake.

I repeat once again, in the photo Acronicta psi. By the way, you have published photos of both types of caterpillars. You couldn't have accidentally mixed it up during the output process?

I didn't grow the Acronicta psi caterpillar, I just photographed it and released it.Acronicta tridens found 2 caterpillars, both pupated, but only one hatched, so there couldn't be a 100% error. Why are you so sure that this is Acronicta psi, the species are very similar... If you have a photo of Acronicta tridens, please post it for comparison.

if you brought it out, find a photo of the caterpillars - and remember what was yours.

barko
and the money is definitely determined?
I look in the Butterflies of Uraina. Only tridens is represented there, and it is exactly like the upper butterfly. Psi is not there at all, but it is written that it differs only in the genital apparatus. Probably this is not in vain, otherwise there would not have been such a problem.

I liked the description. But I assumed that it is possible that the lower butterfly is generally some kind of strange species, just by chance it is not true
Since I do not understand scoops , I am guided by everything at hand, in this case the Scoops of Ukraine, for that work and compare, if there is what you need )
But if so, the information is exhaustive and now I think there should be no errors

The first important difference between these species is the color of the front wings. In psi, it is gray, gray, white-gray, white-black. There are several easily distinguishable colors. The color of the tridens wing is anything but white-gray or gray, and the most important thing is that the wing is monochrome.

The second main difference is that the color of the tridens front wing is more monotonous, as if the wing was first evenly painted and only then added several patterns of black. The psi wing is clearly not monophonic, you can see how different parts of the wing are painted in different tones and different colors.
There is a place on the wing that is convenient to compare for differences in color. In psi, a mixture of gray, white, gray, and black is easily distinguished in this place, as if a small crumb of different colors is poured in. The color and tone of this area is noticeably different from the color and tone of the neighboring wing sections located above, to the right and below.
The color and tonality of the tridens wing, in this place, completely coincide with those of the adjacent areas.

The third difference is the different shape of the front wing. The psi has a rounded and wide wing. In tridens, the wing is more elongated and narrower.

Here are images of my A. psi and A. tridens.

A. tridens - 10.08.2007, from a caterpillar, Feodosiyskiy g/ s, Primorskiy settlement 11.06.2007
A. psi-04.07.2008, from caterpillar, vicinity of Stary Krym, Kurskoye village, Bor-Kaya 16.06.2008
images were taken at the same scale.

I compared them according to the above criteria:
- The first attribute is executed
- The second attribute is not. More monophonic I have on the contrary A. psi.. I don't notice" small crumbs " in any of the species.
- The third attribute is being executed.

In my opinion, the NicoSander butterfly is still A. tridens, because firstly, it has a wing shape characteristic of this species (according to my observations, the shape of the wings is a very significant sign), and secondly, although its color in the picture is grayish, however, this may simply be a consequence of photographing. For example, no matter how hard I tried to correctly photograph my dustpan, the colors still turned out to be significantly distorted. The real colors of my photos (below) are the result of a correction in Photoshop, although even after that, the colors are still somewhat distorted.
I take a lot of photos and determine from photos, and I have long come to the conclusion that with such a definition, color differences should be treated very carefully, because the very first thing that is broken when photographing is the correct transmission of colors and shades. Thus, the first sign in this case can not be considered significant.
So:
- a significant feature-the shape of the wings-for A. tridens
- NicoSander himself claims that it was the A. tridens caterpillar that he grew




This post was edited by okoem - 07.03.2009 11: 23

Simyra albovenosa (Goeze, 1781)
Ukraine, Ivano-Frankivsk region.

Pictures:

P1030293.JPG — (149.91к)

Eogena contaminei (Eversmann, 1847)
October 30, 2009, ex larva, Crimea, near Feodosia, October 4, 2009, on Limonium meyeri (kermek Meyeri).

Pictures:

IMGP3519.jpg — (38.07к)


IMGP3544.jpg — (57.87к)


20091004_133408.jpg — (61.87к)


20091004_133830.jpg — (68.69к)

how lovely!!!

Well, from me here are a few caterpillars of strelchatok near Moscow.
All photos from here: M. O. Balashikha district, Zheleznodorozhny district. Date of recording in the file name.
1) Moma alpium Osbeck, 1778. Many thanks to Ilya U for the definition.
2 and 3) Acronicta auricoma Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775.
4) Acronicta aceris Linnaeus, 1758. Quite an aggressive caterpillar (I lived in the same jar with a poplar hawk moth caterpillar and constantly attacked it).
I had to plant them!!!
5) Acronicta rumicis Linnaeus, 1758. Many thanks to Morozzz for the definition.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 28.11.2009 22: 29

Pictures:

1_25.08.2005.jpg — (127.42к)


2_31.08.2005.jpg — (83.31к)


3_04.09.2005.jpg — (88.42к)


4_23.08.2009.jpg — (135.75к)


5_02.08.2009.jpg — (102.86к)

5th - A. rumicis

The acronicta alni caterpillar of different ages
is young and resembles bird droppings. It reminds me a lot.

This post was edited by Morozzz - 28.11.2009 22: 32

Pictures:

alni_3.jpg — (268.02к)


alni_4.jpg — (252.38к)


alni_5.jpg — (275.42к)

Above there was a discussion about the definition of psi-tridence-cusp, I found another one, it works if the line is visible


This post was edited by svm2 - 11/29/2009 10: 24

Acronicta euphorbiae (Denis et Schiffermuller, 1775)
Karachay-Cherkessia, Uzunkol, 2000 m, end of July 2009

Pictures:

euphorbiae1.jpg — (269.51к)

As a result of the butterflies, they didn't notice my arrowheads. Maybe you'll get lucky here

Pictures:

DSC03693_1.JPG — (126.09к)


DSC03695_1.JPG — (161.39к)

1-rumicis
2-4 -megacephala

Where did the butterflies come from?
in the upper photo A. rumicis
in the lower upper left -A. aceris, the other three megacephala

This post was edited by EvgenD - 07.01.2010 11: 35

Where did the butterflies come from?
in the upper photo A. rumicis
in the lower upper left -A. aceris, the other three megacephala

I agree that the first picture is closest to rumicis. But I'm not sure if there's a white spot. Unfortunately, there are scuffs in the place where it should be. If we assume that there is no spot, what can it be? For comparison, I put her photo together with the standard rumicis, which was also caught on the same night (south of the Ryazan region) as the first one.

On the second photo with four arrows. The two right ones are clearly megacephaly and I placed them for comparison with the ones that raised questions. Regarding the one you defined as aceris - here's a picture that shows what I always thought was akeris along with it.

The left one is dark, I agree, probably also a megacephala.
I would really like to see Barko's opinion!
By the way, Evgeny, we are almost fellow countrymen. Until 1990, I spent the whole summer in Vitebsk, resting with ba and de. Sometimes even now (every two years or so) I go fishing for a week.

This post was edited on sdi-08.01.2010 12: 42

I agree that the first picture is closest to rumicis. But I'm not sure if there's a white spot. Unfortunately, there are scuffs in the place where it should be. If we assume that there is no spot, what can it be? For comparison, I put her photo together with the standard rumicis, which was also caught on the same night (south of the Ryazan region) as the first one.
On the second photo with four arrows. The two right ones are clearly megacephaly and I placed them for comparison with the ones that raised questions. Regarding the one you defined as aceris - here's a picture that shows what I always thought was akeris along with it.
The left one is dark, I agree, probably also a megacephala.
I would really like to see Barko's opinion!
By the way, Evgeny, we are almost fellow countrymen. Until 1990, I spent the whole summer in Vitebsk, resting with ba and de. Sometimes even now (every two years or so) I go fishing for a week.

Two upper rumicis butterflies. The main distinguishing feature is the characteristic dirty green color of the forewings, rather than a white spot. Even this photo shows the presence of green. There are no similar acronyctins with green.

Two second aceris.

This post was edited by barko-08.01.2010 14: 35

  
By the way, Evgeny, we are almost fellow countrymen. Until 1990, I spent the whole summer in Vitebsk, resting with ba and de. Sometimes even now (every two years or so) I go fishing for a week.

Yes, the world is small. We have not only fishing, but also butterflies sometimes come across quite good (the main thing is that you need to know the places!). So if you suddenly get ready - stop by, I will be glad.

Here is such a sagittarius has not yet been - Craniophora ligustri.
Caught on June 10 of this year, Piramidy village, Buturlinovsky district, Voronezh region.

Pictures:

DSC03705_1.JPG — (174.66к)

I would really like to see a photo of Craniophora pontica here!

Here is the Crimean pontoon

great!
And how often does it occur there?

Caught by a colleague R. Gerasimov, according to him, in the Crimea it flies well, this one from Kazantipa

Craniophora pontica, if I'm not mistaken, is only in the tattoo.
Zaporozhye region, Vasilyevsky district, Lysaya Gora 10.06.

I decided to put this kind of arrow from the Moscow region here:
Acronicta leporina Linnaeus, 1758
Caught here: M. O. G. Zheleznodorozhny, on the light of a lantern with DRL, date in the file name.
Many thanks to svm2 for defining the butterfly.

Pictures:

23.06.1996.jpg — (179.25к)