Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2021 | 13(9): 19310–19323
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6037.13.9.19310-19323
#6037 | Received 23 April 2020 | Final
received 16 July 2021 | Finally accepted 25 July 2021
A preliminary checklist of moths
(Lepidoptera: Heterocera) from Gangajalghati,
Bankura, West Bengal, India
Ananya Nayak
Department of Zoology, Bankura Sammilani College, Kenduadihi,
Bankura, West Bengal 722102, India.
ananya0001@gmail.com
Abstract: The present study was conducted
at Gangajalghati, a village near the forest of
Bankura district from West Bengal that has a tropical wet and dry climate where
moth diversity has not been explored before. The village was surveyed between
January 2016 and December 2018. The present study has recorded a total of 1,328
individual moths belonging to 13 families, 31 subfamilies, 80 genera, and 90
species. Of which four species viz. Condylorrhiza
diniasalis (Walker, 1859), Argyrocosma
inductaria (Guenée,
1858), Oraesia emarginata
(Fabricius, 1794) and Eublemma
roseonivea (Walker, 1863) have been reported for
the first time from West Bengal, India.
Keywords: Conservation, diversity, Erebidae, Eublemma roseonivea, microlepidoptera.
Editor: Jatishwor Singh Irungbam,
Biology Centre CAS, České Budějovice,
Czech Republic. Date of publication:
26 August 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Nayak, A. (2021). A preliminary checklist of moths
(Lepidoptera: Heterocera) from Gangajalghati,
Bankura, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(9): 19310–19323. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6037.13.9.19310-19323
Copyright: © Nayak 2021. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Self-funded.
Competing interests: The author
declares no competing interests.
Author details: Ananya Nayak is an Assistant
Professor of Zoology, Bankura Sammilani College, West
Bengal, India. The author’s broad research interests include Lepidopteran
diversity and avian ecology of Bankura and a few other parts of southern
Bengal.
Acknowledgements: The author would like to express
his sincere thanks to Sgt. Anupran
Nayak of the Indian Air Force, Uttarlai Air Force
Station, Barmer, Rajasthan, India and Sujata Roy, a
student of Gangajalghati High School, Bankura for
their immense help during the fieldwork of this research.
Introduction
Moths constitute the vast
majority of the insect order Lepidoptera and are present in all the continents
except polar regions. This important component of biodiversity serves as
nocturnal pollinators, herbivores of crops and wild plants, and food for numerous
species of rodents, birds, and bats (Bates et al. 2014). Being dynamic, the
biological diversity of a given area changes continually in response to biotic
and abiotic fluctuations and other environmental pressures and therefore, close
monitoring and recording of its status in time and space are necessary to
assess their impacts (Green et al. 2009). Tropical regions of the world exhibit
higher levels of endemism and great moth abundance and diversity in comparison
to the temperate regions and need more explorations to determine their complete
conservation status (New 2004; Green et al. 2009). Detecting, describing, and
interpreting the results of an inventory of fauna from a specific region almost
always remains a challenging task and the primary data collected in such
studies can be used for the analysis by environmental agencies (Silveira et al.
2010). Documentation of species occurrence records in a data-poor but
biodiversity-rich region like Bankura is important for determining the species
distribution and abundance of the district which contribute significantly to
the knowledge base of local biodiversity. Further, small-area inventories of
relatively immobile or readily detected organisms from an unexplored region may
provide both reliable presence and absence information of a species, but
usually with limited spatial or temporal specificity (Jetz
et al. 2019).
India harbours nearly 10,000
species of moths which is approximately 10 times higher than the number of
butterfly species of the country (Smetacek 2013). The
pioneering work on the moth diversity of West Bengal and India dates back
nearly 100 years when extensive work was done by Hampson (1892, 1894, 1895,
1896) and Bell & Scott (1937). A total of 42 species of microlepidoptera
(moths) from West Bengal was described by Meyrick (1912–1916, 1916–1923,
1923–1930, 1930–1936, 1937) and Sevastopulo (1945,
1956) reported several moth species from Calcutta. Subsequent studies by the
Zoological Survey of India and others have enriched and extended the work on
the moth fauna of West Bengal (Bhattacharya l997a,b; Ghosh & Chaudhury
1997a,b; Gupta 1997; Mandal & Ghosh 1997; Mandal & Maulik
1997; Sanyal et al. 2012; Biswas et al. 2017a,b). The
studies by Bhattacharya (1997a,b) have reported 35 species and subspecies under
21 genera of Zygaenidae and 140 species of Pyralidae from different districts of West Bengal. The work
by Ghosh & Chaudhury (1997a) has reported the presence of 52 species in 29
genera of Arctiidae in 14 districts of the state.
Further work by Ghosh & Chaudhury (1997b) has described 18 species in five
genera of the family Ctenuchidae from 11 districts of
West Bengal and four species in a single genus of the family Hypsidae from six districts of the state. A study by Gupta
(1997) recorded 20 species of Saturniidae from seven
districts of the state. Mandal & Ghosh (1997) reported 47 species of Geometridae belonging to 32 genera from the state of West
Bengal. A study by Mandal & Maulik (1997) has
described 67 species of Sphingidae, 25 species of Lasiocampidae, 89 species of Lymantriidae,
and only one species (Ratarda marmorata)
of Ratardidae from the state. Arora (2000) studied
several pyralid species of economic importance from
the state. Several studies over the past decade have made a significant contribution
to the moth study of West Bengal (Sanyal et al. 2012;
2017a,b; Shah et al. 2016, 2017, 2018). The work by Sanyal
et al. (2012) has reported many moth species from different parts of West
Bengal. Further work by Biswas et al. (2017a) has reported 94 species of moths
from the Sunderban Biosphere Reserve. Shah et al.
(2016) reported the occurrence of 198 species under 142 genera from the Kolkata
Metropolitan Region. Further work by Shah et al. (2017) reported the occurrence
of 40 species in Neora Valley National Park of West
Bengal. Another work has enlisted the presence of 1,058 moth species in West
Bengal (Shah et al. 2018). Recently a study by Nayak & Sasmal
(2020) has reported 78 species of moths from the Midnapore town in West Bengal.
In the present work, a preliminary inventory of the moth fauna of Gangajalghati village of Bankura district was performed and
the findings of the study were summarized in an illustrated checklist. The
study reports the occurrence of 90 species in 80 genera from the study area.
Materials
and Methods
Study area
Gangajalghati is a village under Bankura Sadar subdivision of Bankura district of West Bengal, India
(Figure 1). It is located about 24 km north of Bankura town. The village is
located at 23.42°N 87.12°E with very deep sandy loam to sandy clay loam soils
(Das & Gupta 2019) and is surrounded by a number of landforms including an
adjacent Sal forest, Damodar River (18km) on the
north and north-east, Koro hill (122m, 5km) and Sali
River (5km) on the south, Sali Reservoir or Gangdua Dam (4km) on the south-west and Susunia
hill (448m, 18km) on the west. Gangajalghati forest,
locally also known as the jungle of Hanspahari is a
small forest area located to the north of the village and ends near Mejia
Thermal Power Station. Shorea robusta remains the most dominant species of the forest
with other notable species like Butea monosperma,
Madhuca indica,
and Phoenix sylvestris. Besides forest
associated zones, the study area encompasses a large number of ponds. Some
other notable plants found in the village area are Acacia auriculiformis, Azadirachta
indica, Bambusa
spp., Bombax ceiba, Eucalyptus tereticornis,
Ficus benghalensis,
Tamarindus indica, and Terminalia
arjuna. The common crops grown in the area are beans, Bitter Gourd, Bottle
Gourd, Brinjal, Cabbage, Carrot, Cauliflower, Chillies, Cucumber, Potato,
Ladies Finger, Maize, Onion, Pumpkin, Radish, Rice, Tomato, Snake Gourd,
Squash, and Sugarcane and some of the common fruits are Black Plum, Common Fig,
Custard Apple, Date Palm, Doub Palm, Guava, Jack
Fruit, Jujube, Mango, and Papaya. The climate shows a hot summer (April–May),
monsoon (June–September), and winter (November–February) with an annual
rainfall between 1,200 to 1,500 mm. The maximum temperature varies 35–45°C in
summer and 12–15°C in the winter season (Das & Gupta 2019). The study was
conducted in different land-use types including localities near the forest
area, roadside vegetations, vegetations around water bodies, grasslands, bushes
of weeds, gardens, and agricultural lands (Image 91).
Moth
surveys and Identification
The
sampling of the moth was conducted in 22 localities for three years from 2016
to 2018. Light trapping method was employed for 15 nights during 15 months in
12 different localities (Table 1), and collected the moth data through
opportunistic surveys in all 22 localities. Table 2 provides the details of
sampling nights in the study area from 2016 to 2018. However, due to frequent
elephant attacks in the forest area for the last two decades, recording of
moths was not possible in the core area of the forest. The trap (a hanging
white cloth sheet) was illuminated from 1900 h to 2200 h and the moth counts
were recorded and photographed using a Canon EOS 1200D DSLR Camera with a
55–250mm lens and a Sony DSC-H400 compact camera with 63x optical zoom to
support further identification. Diurnal species were recorded and photographed
during daylight hours. The survey data were analysed with Microsoft Office
Excel, 2010.
Moths were
identified based on morphological characters with the help of available
literature including Hampson (1892–1896), Bell & Scott (1937), Holloway
(1985–2009), Haruta (1992–2000), Robinson et al.
(1994), Arora (2000), Schintlmeister & Pinratana (2007), Kononenko &
Pinratana (2013), Kirti & Singh (2015, 2016), and
Kirti et al. (2019). The classification used in the checklist follows van Nieukerken et al. (2011). Besides the above mentioned
literature, a number of web resources including www.jpmoths.org; moths of India
(http://www.mothsofindia.org/; Sondhi et al. 2020)
were used for the purpose of identification.
Results
The present
work has recorded a total of 1,328 individual moths belonging to 13 families,
31 subfamilies, 80 genera, and 90 species across different parts of the study
area (Table 3, Images 1–90). Maximum species richness was recorded from the
family Erebidae (31 species; 27 genera) followed by Crambidae (27 species; 24 genera), Sphingidae
(seven species; seven genera), Geometridae (seven
species; six genera), Noctuidae (five species; five
genera), Notodontidae (three species; three genera),
and others (Figure 2; Table 4). However, Crambidae (41.26%)
was the family having highest proportion of moths recorded followed by Erebidae (33.05%), Geometridae (7%),
Noctuidae (5.34%), Sphingidae
(3.31%), and others. These results of the study were consistent with the
previous finding that reported the dominance of these moth families from
Jharkhand as well as from Gangetic plains with a tropical wet and dry climate
similar to the present study area (Singh et al. 2017). However, Bombycidae, Euteliidae, Lasiocampidae, and Saturnidae
were represented by single species in the study area.
Although
the surveys were not undertaken uniformly throughout the year, data were recorded
on the month-wise occurrence of these species. The results showed that the
species richness (data not shown) and relative abundance increased
significantly from May to October, peaked in October and decreased rapidly at
the end of November with further declines in the early winter session (Figure
4). These results indicate that the highest numbers of moths were recorded
during warm nights from June to October and it can be explained by the positive
correlation between the activity of ectothermic species and ambient temperature
(Jonason et al. 2014). The highest number of
species (30) observed on 30 October 2016, which was the night of
Kali Puja/Diwali festival. These observations are following previous studies,
which showed that the number of moth individuals caught in the light trap are
at their highest at periods of no moon or new moon and decrease with the
fullness of the moon (Williams 1936; Yela & Holyoak 1997; Butler et al. 1999). The most abundant
species were Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée, 1854)
followed by Diaphania indica
(Saunders, 1851), Asota caricae (Fabricius, 1775),
Chabula acamasalis (Walker,
1859), Glyphodes bicolour (Swainson,
1821), and Pericallia ricini
(Fabricius, 1775). Some of the least abundant
species recorded were Agrius convolvuli
(Linnaeus, 1758), Erebus hieroglyphica (Drury,
1773), and Eupterote undata
(Blanchard, 1844). A total of 18 species were documented exclusively by
opportunistic occurrence records and 72 species were documented by both light
trapping and opportunistic observations. The data also revealed that only three
(Spilomelinae, Arctiinae,
and Erebinae) out of 31 subfamilies constituted more
than 50% of all moth individuals recorded, that includes a number of economic
pest of crops and fruits (Figure 3). Therefore, the results of the study
represent a species pool (Sphingidae, Eupterotidae, Saturniidae, Notodontidae) indicative of an assemblage of Sal dominated
forest which is currently in a fragmented state and invaded by generalist or
pest species group (Crambidae, Arctiinae)
associated with highly altered open habitats.
Discussion
Prior to this study, only 11 moth
species had been reported from the Bankura district; Acherontia
styx (Westwood, 1847), Asota
caricae (Fabricius,
1775), Creatonotos gangis
(Linnaeus, 1763), Creatonotos transiens (Walker, 1855), Diaphania
indica (Saunders, 1851), Eilema
vicara (Strand, 1922), Macroglossum
gyrans (Walker, 1856), Scirpophaga
incertulas (Walker, 1863), Theretra
oldenlandiae (Fabricius,
1775), Theretra silhetensis
(Walker, 1856), and Trabala vishnou (Lefèbvre, 1827)
(Bhattacharya 1997b; Ghosh & Chaudhury 1997a,b; Mandal & Maulik 1997). The present study reports a total of 82
species from Bankura district in West Bengal that has not been reported
earlier. However, the most important
finding from the study was the documentation of four species, viz., Condylorrhiza diniasalis
(Walker, 1859), Argyrocosma inductaria (Guenée, 1858), Oraesia emarginata
(Fabricius, 1794) and Eublemma
roseonivea (Walker, 1863) (Image 63), a very rare
member of the family Erebidae for the first time from
West Bengal. The species was spotted on 29 October 2016 at around 07:57h. It
was attracted to a Tungsten halogen lamp mounted near a pond on the eve of
Diwali/Kali Puja festival. Later the species was recorded three more times in
different places of Gangajalghati village but no
documentation was made on those occasions. The species was previously reported
from China, Borneo, Indonesia, Malaya, Philippines, and Thailand (Ades &
Kendrick 2004; Kononenko & Pinratana
2013). In India, the species has been recorded from Karimganj
(Assam) (Sondhi et al. 2020). Therefore, the study
reports the westernmost distributional record of the species in India.
Several species including Acherontia styx
(Westwood, 1847), Agrius convolvuli
(Linnaeus, 1758); Achaea janata (Linnaeus,
1758), Creatonotos gangis
(Linnaeus, 1763), Spodoptera litura
(Fabricius, 1775), Helicoverpa
armigera (Hübner,
1809), and Maruca vitrata
(Fabricius, 1787) were found to be an economic pest
of common crops and fruits of the area. The highest abundance of the Crambidae family in the study is represented by the
subfamily Spilomelinae (31%) that constitutes the
most species-rich subfamily of Crambidae. Their
abundance can be explained by the occurrence of diverse habitats rich in
grasses and several crop plants preferred by the members of Crambidae.
Conclusion
The present work has been carried
out to elucidate a preliminary checklist of moth fauna from Gangajalghati
village of Bankura which has not been explored previously. Erebidae
remains the most species rich and Crambidae, the most
abundant family from the village. Although preliminary, the present study will
provide valuable baseline data for moth diversity of the area that has not been
reported. There is an urgent need to assess the degree of deterioration of
habitats for moth fauna in the district and to raise positive public awareness
for Lepidoptera conservation for future monitoring of their status. Further
investigation is therefore warranted to make a detailed checklist for the
better understanding of diversity of moth populations of the Gangajalghati block and Bankura district.
Table 1. Localities with their
GPS coordinates with altitudes and habitat type.
|
Locality or sampling site |
GPS coordinate |
Altitude in m |
Habitat type |
1 |
Samsan Kali Mandir |
23.433639°N, 87.109743°E |
138 |
Sal forest |
2 |
Forest Colony |
23.431835°N, 87.108471°E |
130 |
Sal forest |
3 |
Hospital Colony |
23.429576°N, 87.107968°E |
125 |
Human habitation |
4 |
Hospital Colony |
23.426922°N, 87.108723°E |
124 |
Agriculture land |
5 |
Gangajalghati Hospital |
23.429183°N, 87.111650°E |
125 |
Human habitation |
6 |
Natun Bandh |
23.430167°N, 87.114418°E |
127 |
Agriculture land |
7 |
Lachmanpur Road |
23.423847°N, 87.109794°E |
119 |
Agriculture land |
8 |
Purano Bandh |
23.421461°N, 87.112079°E |
118 |
Agriculture land |
9 |
Nayak Para Durga Bari |
23.417739°N, 87.115170°E |
120 |
Human habitation |
10 |
Beerkanali |
23.417700°N, 87.117130°E |
118 |
Agriculture land |
11 |
Bara Atchala |
23.421589°N, 87.116336°E |
123 |
Human habitation |
12 |
High School Colony |
23.424238°N, 87.115311°E |
124 |
Human habitation |
Table 2. Details of sampling
nights and collected individuals.
Year and month |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
2016 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2017 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2018 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
No. of individuals by light trapping |
0 |
0 |
9 |
18 |
40 |
116 |
68 |
80 |
189 |
268 |
121 |
0 |
No. of individuals
by opportunistic records |
4 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
23 |
46 |
89 |
79 |
134 |
20 |
7 |
Total no. of individuals |
4 |
2 |
9 |
23 |
50 |
139 |
114 |
169 |
268 |
402 |
141 |
7 |
Table 3. Preliminary checklist of moth
fauna recorded during the study.
|
Family |
Subfamily |
Species |
Author, Year |
Month of observation |
1 |
Limacodidae |
Limacodinae |
Parasa lepida |
Cramer, 1799 |
Aug, Sep |
2 |
Limacodidae |
Limacodinae |
Parasa bicolor |
Walker, 1855 |
Jun |
3 |
Pyralidae |
Pyralinae |
Hypsopygia mauritialis |
Boisduval, 1833 |
Aug |
4 |
Pyralidae |
Pyralinae |
Tamraca torridalis |
Lederer, 1863 |
Sep |
5 |
Crambidae |
Acentropinae |
Parapoynx fluctuosalis |
Zeller, 1852 |
Apr, Oct, Nov |
6 |
Crambidae |
Acentropinae |
Parapoynx stagnalis |
Zeller, 1852 |
Oct, Nov |
7 |
Crambidae |
Pyraustinae |
Orphanostigma abruptalis |
Walker, 1859 |
Jul, Aug |
8 |
Crambidae |
Pyraustinae |
Tatobotys biannulalis |
Walker, 1866 |
Aug, Sep, Oct |
9 |
Crambidae |
Schoenobiinae |
Scirpophaga incertulus |
Walker,1863 |
Jan, Apr, Sep,Oct, Nov |
10 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Aethaloessa calidalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
Jul, Aug |
11 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Agrioglypta itysalis |
Walker,1859 |
Jul, Aug, Sep |
12 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Condylorrhiza diniasalis |
Walker, 1859 |
Oct, Nov |
13 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Chabula acamasalis |
Walker, 1859 |
Sep, Oct |
14 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Cirrhochrista brizoalis |
Walker, 1859 |
Oct |
15 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Cnaphalocrocis medinalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
Sep, Oct, Nov |
16 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Conogethes punctiferalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
Sep |
17 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Diaphania indica |
Saunders,1851 |
Jul, Sep, Oct, Nov |
18 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Botyodes flavibasalis |
Moore, 1867 |
Oct |
19 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Eurrhyparodes tricoloralis |
Zeller, 1852 |
Oct |
20 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Glyphodes bicolor |
Swainson, 1821 |
Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct |
21 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Glyphodes caesalis |
Walker, 1859 |
Sep, Oct |
22 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Glyphodes onychinalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
Sep, Oct |
23 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Haritalodes derogata |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Jul, Aug |
24 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Hymenia perspectalis
|
Hübner, 1796 |
Oct |
25 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Maruca vitrata |
Fabricius, 1787 |
Sep, Oct |
26 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Metoeca foedalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
Oct, Nov |
27 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Parotis cf. marginata |
Hampson, 1893 |
Aug, Sep |
28 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Pycnarmon cribrata |
Fabricius, 1794 |
Oct |
29 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Sameodes cancellalis |
Zeller, 1852 |
May, Jun |
30 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Spoladea recurvalis |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Oct |
31 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Syllepte straminalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
Jun |
32 |
Lasiocampidae |
Lasiocampinae |
Trabala vishnou |
Lefèbvre, 1827 |
Aug |
33 |
Eupterotidae |
Eupteroptinae |
Eupterote bifasciata |
Kishida, 1994 |
Sep, Oct, Nov |
34 |
Eupterotidae |
Eupteroptinae |
Eupterote undata |
Blanchard, 1844 |
May, Jun |
35 |
Bombycidae |
Bombycinae |
Trilocha varians |
Walker, 1855 |
Oct, Dec |
36 |
Saturniidae |
Saturniinae |
Actias selene |
Hübner, 1806 |
Oct |
37 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Daphnis nerii |
Linnaeus, 1758 |
May |
38 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Hippotion rosetta |
Swinhoe, 1892 |
Aug, Sep |
39 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Nephele hespera |
Fabricius, 1775 |
May |
40 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Pergesa acteus |
Cramer, 1779 |
Jul, Aug, Sep |
41 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Theretra silhetensis |
Walker, 1856 |
Sep |
42 |
Sphingidae |
Sphinginae |
Acherontia styx |
Westwood, 1847 |
May, Jun |
43 |
Sphingidae |
Sphinginae |
Agrius convolvuli |
Linnaeus, 1758 |
Dec |
44 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Hyperythra lutea |
Stoll, 1781 |
Sep, Oct |
45 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Hypomecis cineracea |
Moore, 1888 |
Jun |
46 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Hypomecis transcissa |
Walker, 1860 |
Sep, Oct |
47 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Petelia medardaria |
Herrich-Schäffer, 1856 |
Jul |
48 |
Geometridae |
Geometrinae |
Agathia laetata |
Fabricius, 1794 |
Sep, Oct, Nov |
49 |
Geometridae |
Geometrinae |
Argyrocosma inductaria |
Guenée, 1858 |
Aug |
50 |
Geometridae |
Sterrhinae |
Scopula emissaria |
Walker, 1861 |
Jan, Apr, Oct |
51 |
Notodontidae |
Biretinae |
Saliocleta longipennis |
Moore, 1881 |
Sep |
52 |
Notodontidae |
Phalerinae |
Antheua servula |
Drury ,1773 |
Nov |
53 |
Notodontidae |
Phalerinae |
Phalera raya |
Moore, 1849 |
Apr |
54 |
Erebidae |
Aganainae |
Asota caricae |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Jul, Sep, Oct, Nov |
55 |
Erebidae |
Aganainae |
Asota ficus |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Jul, Aug, Sep |
56 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Amata passalis |
Fabricius, 1781 |
Jan, Oct |
57 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Brunia antica |
Walker, 1854 |
Oct, Nov |
58 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Creatonotos gangis |
Linnaeus, 1763 |
Jun, Jul |
59 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Creatonotos transiens |
Walker, 1855 |
Jul, Aug |
60 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Eressa confinis |
Walker, 1854 |
Jun |
61 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Pericallia ricini |
Fabricius, 1775 |
May, Jun, Jul, Sep |
62 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Syntomoides imaon |
Cramer, 1780 |
Jan, Oct, Nov |
63 |
Erebidae |
Boletobiinae |
Eublemma roseonivea |
Walker, 1863 |
Oct, Nov |
64 |
Erebidae |
Calpinae |
Eudocima materna |
Linnaeus, 1767 |
Jun, Jul, Sep |
65 |
Erebidae |
Calpinae |
Oraesia emarginata |
Fabricius, 1794 |
Aug, Sep |
66 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Achaea janata |
Linnaeus, 1758 |
Aug, Sep |
67 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Chalciope mygdon |
Cramer, 1777 |
Nov |
68 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Ercheia cyllaria |
Cramer, 1779 |
Oct, Nov |
69 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Erebus ephesperis
|
Hübner, 1827 |
Oct, Nov |
70 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Erebus hieroglyphica
|
Drury, 1773 |
Aug, Sep |
71 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Fodina pallula |
Guenée, 1852 |
Aug, Sep |
72 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Grammodes geometrica |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Oct, Nov |
73 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Scardamia cf. metallaria |
Guenée, 1858 |
Oct, Nov |
74 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Mocis frugalis |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Oct, Nov |
75 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Pericyma cruegeri |
Butler, 1886 |
Aug, Sep |
76 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Pericyma umbrina |
Guenée, 1852 |
Apr |
77 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Polydesma boarmoides |
Guenée, 1852 |
Jun, Jul |
78 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Sphingomorpha chlorea |
Cramer, 1777 |
Oct |
79 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Spirama retorta |
Clerck, 1764 |
Apr, Jun, Nov |
80 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Thyas coronata |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Aug, Sep |
81 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Arctornis cygna |
Moore, 1879 |
Jul, Sep |
82 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Lymantria marginata |
Walker, 1855 |
Feb, Mar |
83 |
Erebidae |
Pangraptinae |
Egnasia ephyrodalis |
Walker, 1858 |
Aug |
84 |
Erebidae |
Scoliopteryginae |
Anomis fulvida |
Guenée, 1852 |
Oct, Nov |
85 |
Euteliidae |
Euteliinae |
Paectes subapicalis |
Walker, 1858 |
Jun |
86 |
Noctuidae |
Bagisarinae |
Xanthodes intersepta |
Guenée, 1852 |
Sep |
87 |
Noctuidae |
Condicinae |
Condica illecta |
Walker, 1865 |
Jul, Aug |
88 |
Noctuidae |
Eustrotiinae |
Maliattha signifera |
Walker, 1858 |
Oct |
89 |
Noctuidae |
Heliothinae |
Helicoverpa armigera |
Hübner, 1808 |
May, Jun |
90 |
Noctuidae |
Noctuinae |
Spodoptera litura |
Fabricius, 1775 |
Sep, Oct |
Table 4. Family-wise number of
species recorded during the survey.
|
Family |
Number of species recorded |
1 |
Limacodidae |
2 |
2 |
Pyralidae |
2 |
3 |
Crambidae |
27 |
4 |
Lasiocampidae |
1 |
5 |
Eupterotidae |
2 |
6 |
Bombycidae |
1 |
7 |
Saturniidae |
1 |
8 |
Sphingidae |
7 |
9 |
Geometridae |
7 |
10 |
Notodontidae |
3 |
11 |
Erebidae |
31 |
12 |
Euteliidae |
1 |
13 |
Noctuidae |
5 |
|
Total |
90 |
For figures
& images - - click here
References
Ades, G.W.J.
& R.C. Kendrick (2004). Checklist of Hongkong moths. In: Hongkong Fauna: A Checklist of
selected taxa. Fauna Conservation Department, Kadoorie
farm and Botanic Garden Corporation, Hong Kong, 99pp.
Arora, G.S.
(2000). Studies on
some Indian pyralid species of economic importance. Part
I. Crambinae, Schoenobiinae,
Nymphulinae, Phycitinae and
Galleriinae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 181.
Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 149pp.
Bates, A.J.,
J.P. Sadler, D. Grundy, N. Lowe, G. Davis, D. Baker, M. Bridge, R. Freestone,
D. Gardner, C. Gibson, R. Hemming, S. Howarth, S. Orridge,
M. Shaw, T. Tams & H. Young (2014). Garden and landscape-scale
correlates of moths of differing conservation status: significant effects of
urbanization and habitat diversity. Plos
One 9(1): e86925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086925
Bell, T.R.D.
& F.B. Scott (1937). Fauna of British India,
including Ceyon and Burma. Moths–Volume 5, Sphingidae. Taylor and Francis, London, 537pp + 15 pls.
Bhattacharya,
D.P. (1997a). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae, pp. 225–246. In: Director, Zoological Survey of
India (ed.). State Fauna Series 3: Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7. Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata, 793pp.
Bhattacharya,
D.P. (1997b). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, pp. 319–408.
In: Director, Zoological Survey of India (ed.). State Fauna Series 3:
Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata,
793pp.
Biswas, O.,
S. Shah, S. Roy, B. Modak, B. Panja,
U. Chakraborti & B. Mitra
(2017a). Additions to
the Moth fauna of Sunderban biosphere Reserve, India.
Bionotes 19(2): 58–59.
Biswas, O.,
S.K. Shah, B.K. Modak & B. Mitra
(2017b). Description
of one new species of genus Ramila Moore, 1867
(Lepidoptera: Crambidae: Schoenobiinae)
from Indian Sunderbans with a revised key to the
Indian species. Oriental insects 51(4): 1–8.
Butler, L.,
V. Kondo, E.M. Barrows & E.C. Townsend (1999). Effects of Weather Conditions
and Trap Types on Sampling for Richness and Abundance of Forest Macrolepidoptera, Environmental Entomology 28(5):
795–811. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/28.5.795
Das, S.
(2017). Delineation
of groundwater potential zone in hard rock terrain in Gangajalghati
block, Bankura district, India using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 3:
1589–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-0396-7
Das, S. &
K Gupta (2019). Soil survey
to support land use/land cover planning in BPS and BPM region in Gangajalghati block, West Bengal, India. Spatial
Information Research 27: 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-019-00257-1
Digital Moths
of Asia. http://www.jpmoth.org.
(Accessed 1 April 2020).
Ghosh, S.K.
& M. Chaudhury (1997a). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Arctiidae,
pp. 247-273. In: Director, Zoological Survey of India (ed.). State Fauna
Series 3: Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7. Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata, 793pp.
Ghosh, S.K.
& M. Chaudhury (1997b). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Ctexiuchidae
and Hypsidae, pp. 689-704. In: Director, Zoological
Survey of India (ed.). State Fauna Series 3: Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7.
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 793pp.
Green,
M.J.B., R. How, U.K.G.K. Padmalal & S.R.B.
Dissanayake (2009). The importance of monitoring biological diversity and its application
in Sri Lanka. Tropical Ecology 50(1): 41–56.
Gupta, I.J.
(1997). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Saturniidae,
pp. 409-428. In: Director, Zoological Survey of India (ed.). State Fauna
Series 3: Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7. Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata, 793pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1892). The Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths-Volume 1, Saturniidae to Hypsidae.
Taylor and Francis, London, 527pp+333figs.
Hampson, G.F.
(1894). The Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths-Volume 2, Arctiidae, Agrostidae, Noctuidae. Taylor and Francis, London, 609pp+325figs.
Hampson, G.F.
(1895). The Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths-Volume 3, Noctuidae (cont.) to Geometridae.
Taylor and Francis, London, 546pp+226figs.
Hampson, G.F.
(1896). The Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths-Volume 4. Pyralidae. Taylor and Francis, London, 594pp+287figs.
Haruta, T. (ed.) (1992). Moths of Nepal, Part 1,
Tinea. 13 (Supplement 2). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 122pp+109figs+32pls.
Haruta, T. (ed.) (1993). Moths of Nepal, Part 2,
Tinea. 13 (Supplement 3). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 160pp+221figs+32pls.
Haruta, T. (ed.) (1994). Moths of Nepal, Part 3,
Tinea. 14 (Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 171pp+206figs+32pls.
Haruta, T. (ed.) (1995). Moths of Nepal, Part 4,
Tinea. 14 (Supplement 2). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 206pp+303figs+32pls.
Haruta, T. (ed.), (1998). Moths of Nepal, Part 5,
Tinea. 15 (Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 330pp+403figs+32pls.
Haruta, T. (ed.), (2000). Moths of Nepal, Part 6,
Tinea. 16 (Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 163pp+273figs+14pls.
Holloway,
J.D. (1985). Moths of
Borneo (part 14): Family Noctuidae: subfamilies Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Plusiinae, Pantheinae. Malayan
Nature Journal 38: 157–317.
Holloway,
J.D. (1987). The Moths
of Borneo (Part 3): Lasiocampidae, Eupterotidae, Bombycidae, Brahmaeidae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 199pp+20pls.
Holloway,
J.D. (1988). The Moths
of Borneo. Part 6. Arctiidae, Syntominae,
Euchrominiinae, Arctiinae, Aganainae (to Noctuidae). Southdene Sendirian Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, 101pp+17+6pls.
Holloway,
J.D. (1993). The moths of
Borneo (part 11); Family Geometridae: Subfamilies Ennominae. Malayan Nature Journal 47: 1–309.
Holloway,
J.D. (1996). The moths of
Borneo (part 9); Family Geometridae: Subfamilies Oenochrominae, Desmobathrinae, Geometrinae. Malayan
Nature Journal 49: 147–326.
Holloway,
J.D. (1997). The moths of
Borneo (part 10); Family Geometridae: Subfamilies Subfamilies Sterrhinae, Larentiinae, Addenda to other subfamilies. Malayan
Nature Journal 51: 1–242.
Holloway,
J.D. (1999). The moths of
Borneo (part 5): family Lymantriidae. Malayan
Nature Journal 53: 1–188.
Holloway,
J.D. (2009). The moths of
Borneo (part 13): family Noctuidae, subfamily Pantheinae (part), Bagisarinae, Acontiinae, Aediinae, Eustrotiinae, Bryophilinae, Araeopteroninae, Aventiinae, Eublemminae and further miscellaneous genera. Malayan
Nature Journal 62(1&2): 1–240.
Jetz, W., M.A. McGeoch,
R. Guralnick, S. Ferrier, J. Beck, M.J. Costello, M.
Fernandez, G.N. Geller, P. Keil, C. Merow, C. Meyer, F.E. Muller-Karger, H.M. Pereira, E.C.
Regan, D.S. Schmeller & E. Turak
(2019). Essential
biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nature
Ecology & Evolution 3: 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0826-1
Jonason, D., M. Franzén
& T. Ranius (2014). Surveying moths using light
traps: effects of weather and time of year. Plos
One 9(3): e92453. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092453
Kirti, J.S.,
K. Chandra, A. Saxena & N. Singh (2019). Geometrid Moths of India.
Nature Books of India, New Delhi, 296pp.
Kirti, J.S.
& N. Singh (2015). Arctiid Moths of India, Volume 1. Nature Books, New Delhi,
India, 205pp.
Kirti, J.S.
& N. Singh (2016). Arctiid Moths of India, Volume 2. Nature Books, New Delhi,
India, 214pp.
Kononenko, V.S. & A. Pinratana (2013). Moth of Thailand Vol. 3, Part
2. Noctuoidea. An illustrated Catalogue of Erebidae, Nolidae, Euteliidae and Noctuidae (Insecta, Lepidoptera) in Thailand. Brothers of St
Gabriel in Thailand, Bangkok, 625pp.
Mandal, D.K.
& D.R. Maulik (1997). Insecta:
Lepidoptera: Heterocera: Sphingidae,
Lasiocampidae, Lymantriidae
and Ratardidae, pp. 613-687. In: Director, Zoological
Survey of India (ed.). State Fauna Series 3: Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7.
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 793pp.
Mandal, D.K.
& S.K. Ghosh (1997). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Heterocera:
Geometridae, pp. 491-532. In: Director, Zoological
Survey of India (ed.). State Fauna Series 3: Fauna of West Bengal. Part 7.
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 793pp.
Meyrick, E.
(1912–1916). Exotic
Microlepidoptera, E.W. Classey, Hampton, Middlesex,
1: 1–640.
Meyrick, E.
(1916–1923). Exotic
Microlepidoptera. E.W. Classey, Hampton, Middlesex,
2: 1–640.
Meyrick, E.
(1923–1930). Exotic Microlepidoptera.E.W. Classey,
Hampton, Middlesex, 3: 1–640.
Meyrick, E.
(1930–1936). Exotic
Microlepidoptera. E.W. Classey, Hampton, Middlesex,
4: 1–642.
Meyrick, E.
(1937). Exotic
Microlepidoptera. E.W. Classey, Hampton, Middlesex,
4: 1–642.
Nayak, A.
(2020). Blue
Rock-thrush Monticola solitarius pandoo: First record from the southern West Bengal,
India. Ela Journal of Forestry and Wildlife 9(2): 657–661.
Nayak, A.
& S. Sasmal (2020). Monsoon moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of Midnapore town, West Bengal, India: a
preliminary checklist with a note on their diversity. Environmental and
Experimental Biology 18: 271–282. https://doi.org/10.22364/eeb.18.26
New, T.
(2004). Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) and conservation: background and
perspective. Journal of Insect Conservation 8: 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-004-1329-0
Robinson,
G.S., K.R. Tuck, M. Shaffer & K. Cook (1994). The Smaller Moths of
South-East Asia. Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur,
308pp+51figs+32pls.
Sanyal, A.K., J.R.B. Alfred, K.
Venkataraman, S.K. Tiwari & S. Mitra (2012). Status of Biodiversity of
West Bengal. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 969pp.
Schintlmeister, A. & A. Pinratana
(2007). Moths of
Thailand. Volume 5, Notodontidae. Brothers of St
Gabriel in Thailand, Bangkok, 320pp.
Sevastopulo, D.G. (1945). A list of Heterocera
of Calcutta. Journal of Bengal Natural History Society 19: 113–129.
Sevastopulo, D.G. (1956). Notes on the Heterocera
of Calcutta. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 54(1):
153–155.
Shah, S., A.
Das, R. Dutta & B Mitra (2018). A Current List of the Moths
(Lepidoptera) of West Bengal. Bionotes 20(1):
24–29.
Shah, S.K.,
B. Mitra, A. Das & P. Mishra (2017). A report on Moth Fauna (Insecta: Lepidoptera) in Neora
Valley National Park, West Bengal, India. Journal of Environment and
Sociology 14(2): 179–186.
Shah, S.K.,
B. Mitra, K. Mallick & M. Bhattacharya (2016). Moths of Kolkata Metropolitan
Region. ENVlS Newsletter 22(1): 2-7.
Silveira,
L.F., B.M. Beisiegel, F.F. Curcio, P.H. Valdujo, M. Dixo, V.K. Verdade, G.M.T. Mattox & P.T.M. Cunningham (2010). Para que servem
os inventários de fauna? Estudos avançados
24: 173–207. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142010000100015
Singh, N., J.
Ahmad & R. Joshi (2017). Diversity of Moths (Lepidoptera) with New Faunistic Records from North
East Jharkhand, India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 117(4):
326–340. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi%2Fv117%2Fi4%2F2017%2F121289
Smetacek, P. (2013). Review of Indian Lepidoptera
Collections and their significance in conservation. ENVIS Bulletin:
Arthropods and their conservation in India (Insects & Spiders) 14(1):
135–139.
Sondhi, S., Y. Sondhi,
P. Roy & K. Kunte (eds.) (2020). Moths of India, v. 2.00. Indian
Foundation for Butterflies. URL: http://www.mothsofindia.org/. Accessed on 1
April 2020.
van Nieukerken E.J., L. Kaila, I.J. Kitching, N.P. Kristensen,
D.C. Lees, J. Minet, C. Mitter,
M. Mutanen, J.C. Regier,
T.J. Simonsen, N. Wahlberg, S.-H. Yen, R. Zahiri, D. Adamski, J. Baixeras, D. Bartsch, B.A. Bengtsson, J.W. Brown, S.R. Bucheli, D.R. Davis, J.D. Prins,
W.D. Prins, M.E. Epstein, P. Gentili-Poole,
C. Gielis, P. Hättenschwiler,
A. Hausmann, J.D. Holloway, A. Kallies, O. Karsholt, A.Y. Kawahara, S. Koster,
M.V. Kozlov, J.D Lafontaine, G. Lamas, J.F. Landry, S. Lee, M. Nuss, K.-T. Park, C. Penz, J.
Rota, A. Schintlmeister, B.C. Schmidt, J.-C. Sohn,
M.A. Solis, G.M. Tarmann, A.D. Warren, S. Weller,
R.V. Yakovlev, V.V Zolotuhin & A. Zwick (2011). Order Lepidoptera, pp. 212–221.
In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (ed.), Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level
classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa
3148: 212–221.
Williams,
C.B. (1936). The
influence of moonlight on the activity of certain nocturnal insects,
particularly of the family Noctuidae, as indicated by
a light trap. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 226:
357–389.
Yela, J.L. & M. Holyoak (1997). Effects of moonlight and
meteorological factors on light and bait trap catches of noctuid moths
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Population Ecology
26: 1283–1290. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/26.6.1283