Yes, thanks for your comment. For A. porphyricollis, which clearly is sexually dimorphic, one would expect this light coloured specimen to show male bipectinate antennae, but this specimen does not show that. But I now think, given the wing markings are somewhat different again from the unidentified sp. of 25 October 2016 that this specimen is probably not A. porphyicollis after all.. I had originally thought this was A. munda, but remained unconvinced after looking at many images online. Although that species is quite variable, I found none that seemed to be a good match. What we have in this specimen seems to me to be intermediate in appearance between those two species. However, I would like to hear Glenn's opinion, so I will leave it as suggested A. porphyricollis for now pending his comment or a better suggestion emerging.
I've looked at this a few times now and put some female porphyricollis under the microscope to compare. While the photo shows a much lighter specimen than all those that I looked at, there are no inconsistencies in the underlying pattern, so I think it is a female porphyricollis. I can't find anything that rules out the 25 Oct 2016 specimen from also being porphyricollis, but you can't see that one as well as the recent specimen, so it's still doubtful.
Describe how you intend to use these images and/or audio files and your request will be sent to the author for consideration.
Your request has been successfully submitted to the author for consideration.
2,203,786 sightings of 20,921 species in 9,221 locations from 12,756 contributors
CCA 3.0 | privacy
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of this land and acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present.