Unplaced tetramera

A Geometer moth at Paddys River, ACT

Request use of media

Identification history

Unplaced tetramera	5 Jun 2022	GlennCocking
Unplaced tetramera	20 Nov 2021	ibaird
Unplaced tetramera	23 Feb 2020	donhe
Casbia crateaa	22 Feb 2020	ibaird

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

User's notes

Attracted to UV light at night.

8 comments

ibaird wrote:

23 Feb 2020

I have suggested this species as Casbia crataea in line with the policy of using the Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) as the taxonomic naming authority. Moths of Victoria (MoV) and Lepidoptera Butterfly House (LBH) recognise C. tetramera with LBH listing C, crataea and Boarmia eucrypta as synonyms. However the AFD does not recognise C. tetramera, rather C. crataea as the species and B. eucrypta as the synonym. Both the ALA and Bold Systems 4 conform with this convention. I think there is quite a good match of this specimen with images on the ALA, Bold Systems 4 , iNaturalist with C. crataea ;and on LBH with C. tetramera.

donhe wrote:

23 Feb 2020

ALA and AFD recognise 'Unplaced tetramera', following the Checklist, listing it as a separate species to Casbia crataea, but the genus Casbia being unsuitable for it. LBH lists it under Lower's original name 'Xenomusa tetramera' until some suitable genus is found.
I think that this sighting, 4250616, looks more like 'Unplaced tetramera' than Casbia crataea.

donhe wrote:

23 Feb 2020

Meanwhile I think 'Casbia crateaa' is mis-spelled. I do not know how to fix it.

donhe wrote:

23 Feb 2020

The vague yellow line across the forewing of C. crataea has a slight dumbbell shape: narrow in the middle, and bulgy near the costa and near the hind-margin.
U. tetramera has a yellow line that is bulgy near the costa but narrow and zigzaggy near the hind margin, which is more like this specimen.

GlennCocking wrote:

23 Feb 2020

The question of the correct name for Unplaced tetramera and Casbia crataea arose when MoV3 was under preparation. It was concluded that the available specimens were Casbia tetramera, and that name was published in MoV3. One of MoV3's CD files explains this. BOLD, ALA and AFD treatments all reflect the earlier thinking. I agree with Ian that the basis for CNM's taxonomy should be AFD as CNM users who wish to can always go to that single source for backup information. Otherwise they have to hunt around for the latest published material. But there will always be cases like this one where AFD is not up-to-date, or perhaps there are conflicting views, and people may query the name. The MOV3 CD files show considerable variation in the yellow line across the forewing.

Calliteara rotundata is an example of where CNM uses a more up-to-date name than AFD's Iropoca rotundata. But the departure from AFD was accidental - as I recall, I put the species onto CNM using what I knew was the published new name without checking whether it had been updated on AFD. (I did once receive a query about it.)

ibaird wrote:

23 Feb 2020

A parallel situation exists for Sighting No, 4250594, although that of course is a different specimen at a different location and date.

ibaird wrote:

23 Feb 2020

I have corrected the C, crataea spelling in CNM''s taxonomy.

GlennCocking wrote:

6 Mar 2020

I'm confirming Don's suggestion to stay in line with AFD.

Please Login or Register to comment.