Philobota philostaura

Kambah, ACT

Request use of media

Identification history

	Philobota philostaura	16 Dec 2019	ibaird
	Philobota philostaura	16 Dec 2019	Marthijn

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

User's notes

Size about 14 mm. Much less contrast in the wing pattern than the one from O'Connor. A question for the moderators: should I enter repeat sightings, or only put in a sighting for a species at one location once?

3 comments

ibaird wrote:

16 Dec 2019

As far as I know there are no firm guidelines on this, except self-imposed ones. Personally, I don't usually submit repeat observations of moth species for the same site (except if doing a survey) , but I do for significantly different new locations e.g, in a reserve or different habitat, greater than about 100m away from a site or in a different Naturemapr region. This means I am ignoring posting photos of what are for me, very common moths (e.g. Olbonoma triptycha, Scopula rubraria etc.) . I do seek to re-submit the same species at a site where a different sex is apparent or when its identifiably the same species but a different form - whether recognised or not. I'm assuming we want to derive maps of distribution of species, link them to habitat if possible, but not create too large a database of repeat observations which serve no real scientific purpose. Hope this helps, but its a worthwhile set of issues to raise. However, there can also be exceptions to such rules because, for example, we might want to identify when a species is active/flowering etc. at sites at different times of the year, so observations at the same pre-defined sites over time would be actively sought (e.g. as for the orchid survey).

Marthijn wrote:

16 Dec 2019

Thanks, I was trying to follow a similar set of rules, but was not clear about how much interest there would be in collecting data about seasonal trends, i.e. at what time of year a species is present.
Although this is a repeat observation, I will not remove it to leave the discussion visible (and also because there are very few sightings of this species, which you recently suggested is actually common).

ibaird wrote:

16 Dec 2019

Similar enough for me, but I may be wrong. No this species has not yet been commonly generally, but I think it will be now that its has been recognised. locally I was just referring to 2 other species that are very common at my home address and on CNM generally. iNaturalist automatically gives a month by month time series graphic plot updated for each new observation of a species for a region, but that is a feature we don.'t have on CNM.

Please Login or Register to comment.