Arctiidae-dippers

And why, then, did the opinion arise about the differences in species by mustache?
What are the actual differences then?

And why, then, did the opinion arise about the differences in species by mustache?
What are the actual differences then?

And what are these differences in the mustache?

Well, in urtitsa they are white, in lyubritsip they are black...

This post was edited by AntSkr - 22.02.2010 11: 32

No urticae are visible.

The top-left one in the left picture is urticae, isn't it?

And I have a question about these two lichens. I have both of them defined as Eilema complana.

It is possible that this is the case. I cooked such plain, light ones-they were complana.

At me on my one urticae was found (dug up lyubritsip of the). I'll post it to the court tomorrow (I don't have time right now-I'll be out for a day). Her mustache is just white, and the specimen itself. all white (no black spots).

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 22.02.2010 04: 57

And why, then, did the opinion arise about the differences in species by mustache?
What are the actual differences then?

There is a good difference in the whiskers - look at the length of the crests on the whiskers of males:
S. lubricipeda


In urtice, they are one and a half to two times shorter and the mustache looks thin. The genitals of this specimen were dissected for reliability. Plus, the urtice almost always has few specks on the front wings and the hind wings are without black dots, but this sign does not always work.
S. urticae

Hello, everyone!

Indeed, all the photographed Muscovites are only Spilosoma lubricipedum. The differences between these two types are as follows:
in males of S. lubricipedum, the antennal scallops are long, even the shortest ones located in the middle part of the antennae are 3-4 times longer than the thickness of the antennal shaft;
in S. urticae, the antennal scallops are short, the long ones are twice as long as the rod thickness, and the short ones are equal to the thickness of the antennal shaft.
This is a sign I first learned from Kauri Mikkola. He himself wrote an article about this only in Finnish.

Additional signs (alas, females have to be identified by them): the forewings of S. urticae are narrower (elongated). In addition, S. urticae almost never has black spots on the hindwings. Over the years, I have seen only one (!) specimen of S. urticae with a black spot on the transverse vein of the hindwings. If there are black spots on the hindwings, it is almost 100% S. lubricipedum. The number of spots on the forewings varies greatly in both species: there are some with a very large number of spots, and some are completely white. By the way, the form with a large number of black spots on the forewings in S. urticae is called mandli. It is more common in the Southern Primorye region. By the way, the type of the well-known Spilosoma sangaica Walker [1865], described from Shanghai and considered a Far Eastern subspecies of S. lubricipedum in the 20th century, turned out to be a female of S. urticae! The type is a light butterfly, almost like the Blagoveshchensk (not dark South Primorye) individuals. This is an example of the fact that these species were not able to distinguish correctly for a long time.

Another sign: the forewings of S. lubricipedum sometimes have a slight yellowish tint, and the wings of S. urticae are white. The differences in genitalia are very good, for example, S. lubricipedum is much closer in genitalia to the Far Eastern S. punctarium with a red belly than to the similar-looking S. urticae. But the South Chinese Spilosoma ningyuenfui (together with the close Taiwanese S. daitoensis), which looks very similar to S. punctarium , is a very special group in terms of genitals. In appearance, they are distinguished by an extended dark pattern on the bottom of the front wings.

But the color of the rod of the antennae varies in both species. At least S. lubricipedum has both dark and light antennae.

Here are ALL the finds of S. urticae from the Moscow region that I know and CHECKED MYSELF:
Prov. Mosquensis, distr. Bronitsensis, loc. Ramenskoe, 9.VI 1919-1 female (S. Tshetverikov, ZIN);
Tselyaevo, Dmitrov district (ZIN);
Pushkinsky district, Sofrino settlement (ZIN).

If there is an opportunity to check these points, and there are real populations that still exist, I would appreciate a message.

I found in my archive a photo of a male Spilosoma urticae f. mandli from Primorye, which showed a small dark spot on the discal vein of the hind wings, as well as with a large number of dark spots on the front wings. You can see that this butterfly is quite different from S. lubricipedum even in this form. Please excuse the quality of the butterfly, but the drawing of this specimen may be of interest.
Primorye, Yakovlevka, 8. VIII 1983, P. Ya. Ustyuzhanin

Pictures:

Spilosoma_urticae_mandli_m_Dscn3953.jpg — (173.04к)

The caterpillar from Ustyurt and Mangyshlak is very similar to Lacydes spectabilis. Please send us a specific point! Necessary for mapping the view. There are very few points from deserts. I would be very grateful for the points of any bears from the South-West (and even the southern part of the Central) Kazakhstan.

Volodya, has the spectabilis caterpillar been described somewhere?
Points of sale:
Lacides spectabilis (Tauscher, 1806)
Mangyshlak (P.Gorbunov):
Karakol Lake at Aktau, 43º27’ N, 51º18’ E, 22.04.09 (larvae); Tunes Sands, Besokhty, 43°20’ N, 53°36’, 10.05.09 (larvae)
Ustyurtskii Nature Reserve (P.Gorbunov):
Kokesem, 43°10’ N, 54°53’ E, 18.09.08 (11m, 4f); Kendyrli, 42°57’ N, 54°41’ E, 29.04.08 (larvae), 14.06.08 (1m, 1f); Karynzharyk Sands (Kyzylsengir), 42°50’ N, 54°07’E, 25.04.09 (larvae); 15.10.09 (1m); Kyrtakhtai, 43°17’ N, 54°27’E, 23.04.09 (larvae).
Orenburg Province (P.Gorbunov):
Svetlyi town, 21.08.07 (1m)

Utetheisa pulchella (Linnaeus, 1758) - There is a red spot near the posterior corner of the cr.
Mangyshlak (P.Gorbunov): Beineu, 1.07.09 (1 ex.)

Another urtice point - http://sungaya.narod.ru/hete/arc/spi_urt.htm

Another urtice point - http://sungaya.narod.ru/hete/arc/spi_urt.htm

there are even three of them, if you take into account the pictures in nature.

Here are my Spilosoma urticae. Butterflies are collected in the light.
Mosovskaya region, Chekhov district, Lyubuchany settlement It
should be noted that in 2004 there were a lot of Spilosoma lubricipeda, and only two Spilosoma urticae arrived. The number of Spilosoma urticae is probably quite low, because in 2009, when fishing was carried out several times a week for the DRL 250 lamp, not a single one arrived.

1. Spilosoma urticae


2. Spilosoma lubricipeda and Spilosoma urticae


3. Spilosoma lutea and Spilosoma urticae

Can Spilosoma urticae be found in the Ivanovo region?Or just S. lubricipedum?

Dear colleagues!

Many thanks for the new points on Spilosoma urticae! The northern border of the species ' range is as follows: eastern Lithuania, southern Finland (I have not seen any new materials), the vicinity of St. Petersburg (only old specimens from the 19th century), Pskov region (caught in recent years), Moscow region, Mari El (new collections); Tatarstan and the south of the Kirov region - only old collections, Yekaterinburg (new collections); in Western Siberia: Kurgan, Omsk and Novosibirsk regions; in the Tomsk region, only collections from the middle of the XX century (only male and female from different places, but even then, thank God there is!); further east with the material is quite bad: there is only from the surrounding area Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Daursky Nature Reserve, Blagoveshchensk and many others from Southern Primorye approximately to the railway crossing line with the Ussuri River.

So I don't have any data on S. urticae from the Ivanovo region. I would appreciate your photos! It would be great to find this species there! But S. lubricipedum I have marked from there only from Kineshma. In general, in the Ivanovo region, there are few collections of bears.

By the way, I recently checked the old collections of Lvovsky from the Astrakhan region - there were only one S. urticae. But from the Volgograd region there is one female S. lubricipedum from the Chetverikov collection. In those places, S. urticae prevails.

Pavel, thank you so much for your discoveries from Mangyshlak and Ustyurt!

I found in my archive a photo of a male Spilosoma urticae f. mandli from Primorye, which showed a small dark spot on the discal vein of the hind wings, as well as with a large number of dark spots on the front wings. You can see that this butterfly is quite different from S. lubricipedum even in this form. Please excuse the quality of the butterfly, but the drawing of this specimen may be of interest.
Primorye, Yakovlevka, 8. VIII 1983, P. Ya. Ustyuzhanin

The number of dark spots on the forewings of this specimen is no more than that of any Hungarian urtice, only they are slightly more pronounced. The dark spot on the hind wings is really pronounced. In fact, the urtice is quite recognizable - snow-white wings without a hint of yellowness with characteristic oblong elements of the pattern, narrower, elongated compared to lubricipeda fore wings.

About S. urticae:there is one controversial instance, the definition of which I very much doubt.I'll post a photo as soon as I can.

Yes, there are really few collections of bears in the Ivanovo region.I personally caught from the subfamily Arctiinae: S. lubricipedum (in the Ivanovo region this is a very common species), S. luteum, Arctia caja, Callimorpha dominula, Diacrisia sannio, Parasemia plantaginis,Phragmatobia fuliginosa,Rhyparia purpurata, Tyria jacobaeae.I know for sure that Arctia flavia (north of the Ivanovo region), Pericallia matronula(Yuzhsky district), and Amata phegea (Yuzhsky district)from the Syntominae subfamily are found in the Ivanovo region(I didn't catch the last three.)

Interested in this question:can Arctia festiva,Epicallia villica,Coscinia cribraria,Spiris striata,Diaphora mendica,Hyphoraia aulica be found in the Ivanovo region?What other types can there be besides the ones I mentioned above?

for TEMPUS:

Thank you so much for the information. But PLEASE write down at least more or less specific points that can be plotted on the map...

Spilarctia lutea, Arctia caja, Diacrisia sannio, Parasemia plantaginis, Phragmatobia fuliginosa, Tyria jacobaeae - I did not collect them from the Ivanovo region;
Callimorpha dominula-I know only from Tikhomirov, 1984;
Rhyparia purpurata - only from Kineshma.

Therefore, I will be extremely grateful for the collection points of these species from the Ivanovo region!

Spiris striata was indicated for the Yaroslavl province (ancient collections), Nizhny Novgorod region and Tatarstan, so it can live in the Ivanovo region;
Coscinia cribraria is known: Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Chuvashia, and Tatarstan;
Eucharia festiva was recorded from Kineshma (O. Bang-Haas, 1927);
Epicallia villica and Hyphoraia aulica were caught in the Vladimir and southern half of the Nizhny Novgorod regions.

Of course, you should look for all of them...

Actually,there are not many points.All the bears were collected by me mainly in two places:in the vicinity of the city of Ivanovo and in the Shuisky district, in the vicinity of the village of Krasnoarmeyskoye (where I have a dacha,many of my collections were made in this place).More specifically, then:
1) Arctia caja-Shuisky district, Krasnoarmeyskoye village, na svet.Met often (5-10 individuals per night).In the spring, I often found caterpillars there.
2) Spilarctia lutea-in the same place,into the light.Very frequent view.
3) Diacrisia sannio-males in the same place, in the light.Females:two in the vicinity of the village of Polki, on the outskirts of a mixed forest,and one in the vicinity of the village of Klochkovo, on the edge of the forest.Males were caught at night in the light (flew often - 5-10 individuals), females caught during the day (met very rarely-only three individuals in 5 years of collecting).Something females of this species do not want to fly to the light, and in general they are very rare.
4)Phragmatobia fuliginosa in the same place, in the light.We flew in often.
5) Tyria jacobaeae-in the vicinity of the village of Polki, the edge of a mixed forest, near the floodplain of the Granddaughter River.I caught two copies in the afternoon in 2005,after which I did not come across it again this year or in subsequent years.
6) Callimorpha dominula-quite a frequent species, caught almost everywhere, where only collected, during the day.I often found their caterpillars,especially a lot - on the outskirts of Ivanovo, in the town of Harinka.
7) Rhyparia purpurata-Shuisky district, Krasnoarmeyskoye village, on svet.I met very rarely,during the entire training camp-only three butterflies.

I will try to clarify in the near future exactly where Arctia flavia,Pericallia matronula,and Amata phegea were collected in the Ivanovo region.

This post was edited by TEMPUS-22.02.2010 16: 17

Only you don't have phegea, but nigricornis.

Dear colleagues!

I post a photo of another species that is REALLY found for the FIRST TIME for the fauna of Russia - in the far south of Primorye. This is Spilosoma rubidum Leech (China, Heilongjiang, Tili, VI 2001). Previously, this species (for example, in the works of Seitz, Daniel, Fan Chenlai) was known under the name Spilosoma alba Brem. et Grey, but after studying the lectotype of the latter species, it turned out that it is identical to the species that was known under the name Spilarctia (or Spilosoma - as you like it better) robusta.
So, S. rubidum was found in China in the Jilin province near the city of Tumen (on the Tumen-ula River, which goes to the border of North Korea and Russia. This town is located about 100 km from the mouth.
The butterfly is about the size of Chionarctia nivea (that is, much larger than the usual Spilosoma), but it has a completely red belly on top. In Ch. nivea, the abdomen is white with red and black spots.

But Spilarctia alba (=robusta) is far from reaching the borders of Russia-it is not yet known north of Beijing, but it was described from there. It differs by the presence of large black spots on the cheekbones. See her photo below. It is also the size of Chionarctia nivea.

Pictures:

Spilosoma_rubida_m_Dscn3932.jpg — (191.47к)


Spilarctia_alba_m_Yunnan_Dscn5487.jpg — (151.29к)

And I have a question about these two tracks.

1. 25.07.06 Moscow region, Chekhov district.
?Diacrisia sanio?


2. 28.09.08 Moscow region, Chekhov district

The first caterpillar seems to be really Diacrisia sannio, but the second one needs to be considered... It reminds me a bit of the not quite grown-up Arctia caja...

Many thanks for the points on the bears from the Ivanovo region!

The first caterpillar seems to be really Diacrisia sannio, but the second one needs to be considered... It reminds me a bit of the not quite grown-up Arctia caja...

If this can help determine whether the second caterpillar was feeding on raspberries.

Almost all dippers are polyphages; almost any one (with a small exception of the Tyria jacobaeae type) can be fed with a standard set of plantain leaves, dandelion, legumes, willow, etc.

As for the second caterpillar, there is a suggestion that it is Epicallia villica; I have never collected caterpillars of this species, I found a photo on the Internet
http://www.insectariumvirtual.com/galeria/...ca-img5736.html

In my opinion, it is similar. Of course, this is not Callimorphini, Micrarctiini, or Spilosomini. The caterpillars of the tribe Arctiini are quite characteristic. And there are few of them.

I would like to add that in 1993, on the Dzungarian Alatau near Tekeli, Oleg Kosterin and I found Arctia caja caterpillars with a completely monophonic coloring, very similar to the second caterpillar (alas, the photos were not taken...). By the way, they turned out to be normal A. caja. Caterpillars sometimes have quite a strong variation in color (I do not mean melanism as in Deilephila elpenor with two forms of caterpillars); this can be explained biologically - they should not have a stabilizing selection for recognition of the type of pattern.

After scouring the Internet, I realized that the caterpillar from the Moscow region, which I previously identified as Spilarctia lutea, may also turn out to be a light form of Diaphora mendica or Phragmatobia fuliginosa. There are similar images on the web.

At me on my one urticae was found (dug up lyubritsip of the). I'll post it to the court tomorrow (I don't have time right now-I'll be out for a day). Her mustache is just white, and the specimen itself. all white (no black spots).

Hello! Happy holidays to all!!! Here is yesterday's promised Spilosoma urticae Esper, 1789 (please correct me if I'm wrong) from the Moscow region.
Instance caught in the light, here: M. O. Balashikha district, Zheleznodorozhny district (9 km from MKAD to the east), date of capture in the file name.

Pictures:

21.06.1996.jpg — (106.18к)

Congratulations! This is really a real Spilosoma urticae from the Balashikha region! Short scallops on the antennae are visible quite well. If someone is going to take photos of strange Spilosoma for the forum, please try to find the angle so that the antennae are visible in the best possible way.

This bear was identified to me on the forum as Diaphora mendica. Unfortunately, the angle wasn't very good...
The picture was taken on 23.06.07 in the Chekhov district of the Moscow region.
I would like to hear the opinion of an expert on this group.

Not being an expert in any group, I can only confirm that there is a clear mendic (the characteristic shape of the wings, the color of the legs).

In my opinion this is also a light form of it: http://sungaya.narod.ru/hete/arc/dia_men.htm

Yes, the last bear depicted on the forum is a female Diaphora mendica. Mendica females are always white. Males - can be of different colors - from gray-brown to white, there are intermediate ones, their color depends on the region.

Yes, the last bear depicted on the forum is a female Diaphora mendica. Mendica females are always white. Males - can be of different colors - from gray-brown to white, there are intermediate ones, their color depends on the region.

In the south of the Ryazan region, mendica males came across all colors from gray-brown to white, including intermediate colors.

The differences between these two types are as follows:
in males of S. lubricipedum, the antennal scallops are long, even the shortest ones located in the middle part of the antennae are 3-4 times longer than the thickness of the antennal shaft;
in S. urticae, the antennal scallops are short, the long ones are twice as long as the rod thickness, and the short ones are equal to the thickness of the antennal shaft.
This is a sign I first learned from Kauri Mikkola. He himself wrote an article about this only in Finnish.

Additional signs (alas, females have to be identified by them): the forewings of S. urticae are narrower (elongated). In addition, S. urticae almost never has black spots on the hindwings.

It seemed to me that the Crimean S. lubricipedum, if it is of course they, in appearance much more like S. urticae.

On 12.06.2004 (Crimea, Feodosia, Beregovoe village), a female was collected, from which eggs were obtained, and on 26.07.2004 two males were bred.

Female, narrow, white wings. Spots are reduced.


Male-1, the antennae are quite thin, but due to the fact that he was "born" small, the whiskers seem thicker. The wings are narrow and white.


Male-2, also small and the whiskers seem thicker. The wings are narrow and white.


Preparation of the male-2



Based on these images, I identified it as S. lubricipedum.


And also males (genitals are similar, I didn't take a photo).

Crimea, Priazovye, Zolotoe village, 19.05.2009. The wings are narrow and white.


Crimea, Feodosia, Primorskiy settlement, 23.05.2005. The wings are narrow and yellowish.


Crimea, Kara-Dag, 14.07.1988. The specimen, in addition to its white color and narrow wings, also has a very thin mustache.


I have several other Spilosoma specimens with a similar appearance. I've never seen a specimen with black spots on the hind wings.

Good afternoon! As far as I understand in dipper-ALL photographed specimens of Spilosoma from the Crimea - S. urticae! There are no specimens of S. lubricipedum among them... In addition, the drawing of the genitals (probably from the book of Yefetov) of Spilosoma urticae is incorrect! Well, this species does not have such a "dent" on the inner edge of the basal part of the valva! Simply, in S. lubricipedum, the apical process of the valva is equal to or even longer than the basal part of the valva, and in S. urticae, it is noticeably shorter (but the basal part of the valva itself is longer).

Good afternoon! As far as I understand in dipper-ALL photographed specimens of Spilosoma from the Crimea - S. urticae! There are no specimens of S. lubricipedum among them... In addition, the drawing of the genitals (probably from the book of Yefetov) of Spilosoma urticae is incorrect! Well, this species does not have such a "dent" on the inner edge of the basal part of the valva! Simply, in S. lubricipedum, the apical process of the valva is equal to or even longer than the basal part of the valva, and in S. urticae, it is noticeably shorter (but the basal part of the valva itself is longer).

Thank you so much for the clarification!
Drawing from Murzin's book "Tiger moths of the former Soviet Union".

Many thanks for the explanation of the drawing. I am not familiar with Murzin's book. There are no new descriptions (except for one color form of Eudiaphora turensis), the system is accepted by me, and the book did not arouse much interest in me. In addition, Pensoft strongly raises prices for its books, and gives authors only a single copy of the author. Indecent policy. Murzin couldn't give me an author's copy... And I don't want to spend too much money to buy what I already know... Another thing is the book de Freina & Witt, 1987. At least there are pictures of rare species from North Africa (you can't always find them in collections), although the dipper system was only in its infancy at that time. The distribution of species in Western Europe is also quite good there. The book is now on sale in pemberleybooks.com -I recommend it. Unfortunately, it's not too cheap. But Murzin's book, of course, is also generally good. I can't write badly about her. I just don't like the Pensoft policy...

ALL photographed Spilosoma specimens from Crimea are S. urticae!

what about the mustache then?