Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2021 | 13(13): 19887–19920
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7105.13.13.19887-19920
#7105 | Received 22 January 2021 | Final
received 10 September 2021 | Finally accepted 20 October 2021
An inventory of geometrid moths
(Lepidoptera: Geometroidea: Geometridae) of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve,
India
Geetha Iyer 1, Dieter
Stüning 2 & Sanjay Sondhi
3
1 11/49, Teppakulam street,
Suchindrum-629704, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India.
2 Zoological Research Museum
Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
3 Titli Trust, 49, Rajpur Road
Enclave, Dhoran Khas, near IT Park, PO Gujrada, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248013,
India.
3 Indian Foundation for
Butterflies. C-703, Alpine Pyramid, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka
560097, India.
1 scopsowl@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 d.stuening@leibniz-zfmk.de,
3 sanjay.sondhi1@gmail.com
Editor: George Mathew, Alappuzha, Kerala,
India. Date of publication: 26 November
2021 (online & print)
Citation: Iyer, G., D. Stüning & S.
Sondhi (2021). An inventory of geometrid moths
(Lepidoptera: Geometroidea: Geometridae) of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve,
India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 13(13): 19887–19920. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7105.13.13.19887-19920
Copyright: © Iyer et al. 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 authors declare no competing
interests.
Author details: Geetha Iyer is an independent educational
consultant and author who writes for and trains teachers to help bring India’s
biodiversity into biology and environmental science classes. She is particularly interested in the moths of
the Southern Western Ghats which she has studied for many years at KMTR
and KKWS. She has authored two books, authored and edited school text books, published scientific
papers, and writes popular articles on moths and other insects. Dieter
Stüning is a German Geometridae specialist, who was Head of the
Lepidoptera & Trichoptera Section of the Zoological Research Museum
Alexander Koenig at Bonn for more than 30 years. Since retiring in 2014, he is
working as a scientific associate, continuing to study Palearctic and
Asian Geometridae, especially the taxonomy, systematics and phylogeny of
subfamily Ennominae.He has described numerous new taxa of species and genera
and also co-authored the description of a new moth-family. Sanjay
Sondhi is a Dehradun-based naturalist. An engineering graduate from
IIT-Kanpur, in 2009 he set up TITLI TRUST (www.titlitrust.org), a nature
conservation not-for-profit organisation, which is devoted to studying and
protecting India’s lesser known flora and fauna. He has authored numerous books
and technical papers on amphibians and reptiles, birds, butterflies and moths
and other Indian wildlife.
Author contributions: GI—conceived and designed the
study, surveyed and photographed the moths, prepared the species list, and
wrote the manuscript. DS—supported species identifications with the help
of literature and comparison with specimens of the ZFMK collection, and
editing of the manuscript. SS—supported
species identifications and editing of the manuscript during its various
drafts.All three authors approve the final version.
Acknowledgements: This work would not have been
possible without the permissions and assistance extended by forest personnel of
different cadres. GI thanks the many Field directors, Deputy directors,
foresters, and rangers of KMTR - past and present- for permissions to survey moths and the guards, watchers and anti-poaching
watchers who accompanied her on trails, and provided her with support and help.
GI also thanks the former DFO Mr Ritto Cyriac, rangers, forester and
anti-poaching watchers of Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, and Mr Thomas
Devasahayam of Maramalai for the assistance and help given. Thanks are due to
ecologist Ms B. Smitha for her wide-ranging assistance during the surveys. We thank Rikio Sato from Japan who helped in
identifying some of the geometrids of the tribe Boarmiini. GI thanks Axel
Hausmann and Pasi Sihvonen for sharing the relevant and most recent
publications, as well as answering and clarifying the innumerable number of
queries put to them. She thanks Ian Kitching, Jeremy D. Holloway Roger Clive
Kendrick, Navneet Singh, Pritha Dey, Rahul Joshi, H. Sankararaman and
Balakrishna Valappil for their help in clarifying doubts or sourcing papers
and/or in helping to identify geometrids. GI thanks S. Thalavaipandi, researcher
from ATREE, Bangalore, for sharing the images of geometrids from Upper Kothayar.
Abstract: The geometrid moths of
Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger reserve were studied during the years 2012 to 2016.
Since collection of specimens was not permitted, only field notes, accompanied
by photo documentation was undertaken. Two-hundred-and-sixty geometrid moths
identified to various hierarchical levels of taxa and one new genus for
southern India, are reported.
Keywords: Agasthyamalai, biodiversity,
Heterocera, KMTR, moth diversity, southern Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu.
Abbreviations: FW—Forewing | HW—Hindwing |
KMTR—Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu | KKWS—Kanyakumari Wildlife
Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu | MoB—Moths of Borneo | UN—Underside | UP—Upperside |
ZFMK—Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany.
Introduction
Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger
Reserve (KMTR) is located at the southern Western Ghats, in the Agasthyamalai
range, approximately between 8.416N and 8.883N latitude and 77.166E and 77.583E
longitude. It falls within Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli districts of the State
of Tamil Nadu, India and is part of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve. With a
core area of 895.39 km2, KMTR was established as a tiger reserve in
1988 through the merger of Kalakad Wildlife Sanctuary, Mundanthurai Tiger
Reserve, and parts of Veerapuli and Kilamalai reserve forests, from Kanyakumari
district. The Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary, encompassing an area of 35.9 km2,
in the north and 201.36 km2 of the Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary
towards the south form the buffer area of the reserve. The elevation ranges 100–1,880
m. Thus, a gradient of vegetation ranging from dry scrub to dense evergreen
forest is found here. The reserve receives close to 3,000 mm of rainfall from
both the south-west and north-east monsoons. It serves as a catchment area for
no less than 14 rivers and streams. For this reason, it is sometimes referred
to as a river sanctuary. The Agasthyamalai hills, which includes the core area
of KMTR, are an important biogeographical ‘hot spot’ within the Western Ghats
and a region of endemism in India (UNESCO 2016).
Being a tiger reserve, the
biodiversity studies in this region have largely been focussed on mammals,
herpetofauna, and plants for many years. Recent studies on invertebrates have
been mostly on spiders or butterflies, and moths have not received any
attention. This study is an attempt to enumerate the geometrid moths of this
reserve. It is the first-of-its-kind study of moth diversity for this region,
covering all habitats of the reserve, through seasons over multiple years.
Geometridae (Stephens, 1829)
constitute the second largest family of moths in India, with at least 2,043
species listed so far (Kirti et al. 2019; Sondhi et al. 2020; Dey et al. 2021)
from India. A large number of these slender moths, are mostly nocturnal, but
day flying and crepuscular species are not uncommon. Some geometrids are
strongly haired but most are examples of least-haired moths. In the forests of
KMTR, we have observed them arrive in large numbers when the mist begins to set
in. Protective colouration and camouflage were observed. Polymorphism was
noticeable in many species. This paper outlines through photographic records,
the diversity of geometrid moths arising out of a five-year survey in KMTR.
Geometrids have been reported
from other parts of Western Ghats too: 77 species from Silent Valley National
Park by Mathew & Rahamathulla (1995); six species by Bharmal (2015) from
Amboli, Maharashtra and four species by Mishra et al. (2016) from Kodagu. From
Kerala there are records of 47 species from Shendurney-Ponmudi by Sondhi et al.
(2018). Elenchezhian et al. (2014) reported 28 species from Maruthamalai hills
and Goyal (2010) described 19 species for his PhD. The last two are the only
recently published records from Tamil Nadu and even these studies were restricted
to Madurai and Nilgiri districts.
A literature survey of the older
Indian records in Moore (1884–7,1889) or Hampson (1891, 1893) finds no mention
of moths from Kalakad or Mundanthurai. A few scattered records of geometrids
from ‘Travancore State’ are available. The State of Travancore was dissolved
soon after India attained independence and the places under its jurisdiction
were distributed between the present States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Kanyakumari, from the erstwhile southern part of Travancore State, thus became
a part of Tamil Nadu. Published records of geometrid moths from the southern
part of the erstwhile Travancore State are not available. Hence it is safe to
assume that there are no historical records of moths from this region.
Some moth species have been
recorded from KMTR in recent years by other researchers. Ron Brechlin described a sphingid, Ambulyx
sinjaevi (Brechlin 1998), and a saturniid, Loepa schintlmeisteri
(Brechlin 2000); Stauropus thiaucourti, a notodontid moth, was reported
by Schintlmeister (2003); a cossid Phragmacossia brahmana, by Yakovlev
(2009) and three geometrid species, Racotis keralaria, Ophthalmitis
kalakadaria, and Hypomecis tamilensis, were described by Sato
(2004, 2014, 2016). All these species were recorded from Manjolai (8.250N and
77.433E), a very small area of a few sq. km. All of them were new to science.
There are no other published records of geometrids from KMTR. Thus, most of the
moths presented are previously unrecorded, several unidentified and still to be
described or species that are range extensions. One of them is a new record for
southern India. Hence the moth inventory in this paper is the first attempt to
generate a comprehensive list of geometrid moths found in this Tiger Reserve.
Materials
and Methods
Study sites
The moths listed in this paper
were extensively surveyed from within the core area of KMTR during the years
2012 to 2015, covering most of the months except July and August, primarily due
to lack of access during the monsoons. Moths were surveyed very briefly in the
year 2016 and again, extensively, in the year 2019. The sites of study were
Talayanai, Sengeltheri, Kuthiraivetti, Upper Kothayar, Mundanthurai, and
Kannikatti. The list also includes geometrids from one of the buffer zones of
KMTR, namely Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary (KKWS), from sites located at
Maramalai and Kalikesam (Table 1 & Figure 1–3. Locations and sites of
study). Permission for collection was not available from the core or the buffer
area of KMTR as the sites are within a legally protected area.
Some moths presented are not part
of the planned survey, but were opportunistic observations during the years
2016, 2018, and early 2019. All sites being within the core regions of the
Tiger Reserve, surveys were dependent on permissions from forest department,
weather conditions, availability of accommodation, and finance. The entire
study was self-funded by the first author.
Survey methods
Moths were surveyed using a light
trap consisting of a 160W mercury vapour bulb hung above a white cotton sheet
measuring 3 x 5 feet (0.9144 x 1.524 meters), stretched between either two
posts, trees, window bars, or sometimes, nails on a wall. Wherever electricity
was not available (Sengeltheri and Kannikatti), a kerosene or petrol-powered
Honda generator was used. The white cloth screen was illuminated starting at
1800 h or 1830 h, depending upon sunset, until 0130 h. Where mains electricity
was available, the MV bulb was kept on till 0400 h. Diurnal activity of moths
was noted at all locations.
Digital photographs were taken
using a Panasonic FZ 200 and a Panasonic FZ 35 with a Lumix lens. Field notes
were recorded for morphological details and of features that could not be
captured through photography.
Methods for identification
The Tamil Nadu Forest Department
discourages collection of specimens, even for research. This is one of the
reasons for the poor records of moths and other insects from this region.
Despite providing photographic evidence for new range and species records,
permission to collect voucher specimens was not granted. Consequently, field
notes and digital photography were the only methods available for assessing the
diversity. The notes, photographs, comparisons (of photos) with museum
specimens from ZFMK, Bonn, published papers, discussions with experts and
researchers, and historical records have been the methods used for
identification.
Walker (1860–62), Moore (1879,
1884–87), Swinhoe (1890), Hampson (1891, 1893, 1895), Rothschild (1894), Warren
(1894, 1897), Prout (1912, 1917, 1920–41), Inoue (1953, 1972), Barlow (1982),
Holloway (1983–2011), Butler (1886, 1889), and Scoble et al. (1999) were the
prime sources of reference. Other than these sources, several research papers
and books were also consulted. The second author referred extensively with the
museum specimens at ZFMK, to arrive at identifications, and the third author
used Moths of India website for the same. The classification in the paper,
unless specified otherwise, follows that of Murillo-Ramos et al. (2019).
It is an established fact that
without a specimen in hand, identification to the level of species is an
extremely difficult task for many cryptic moth species. Hence, without
specimens and therefore absence of genitalia information, it was not possible
to identify all geometrids to the species level. Identifications, in such
cases, have been limited to the level of subfamily, tribe or genus. For some
individuals, where records or field data were insufficient, we have suggested
provisional identifications. From our investigations, we believe that some of
these could well be either new species to science or range extensions.
As this was the first
comprehensive survey undertaken in this Tiger Reserve, most of the moths were
first records for KMTR. They were also first records for the districts of
Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Findings from the study
Three-hundred-and-ninety
geometrids belonging to five subfamilies were investigated. Only 260 are
presented in this paper with identities at different levels. Six taxa were
identified to the level of subfamily and six to the level of tribe. While 98
taxa were identified to genus level, 160 taxa, which included males, females as
well as morphs, were identified to the level of species. Thirty-four taxa are
reported with provisional identifications using Open Nomenclature qualifiers
(Box 1). They have been identified to the nearest recognisable species for
comparison, or to a possible species close to them for further study.
Overall, 98 genera and 108
species have been identified. Polymorphism was quite marked in species from
subfamilies Ennominae, Larentiinae, and Sterrhinae. Other than Abraxas
leucostola argyrosticta Hampson, 1893, Hypomecis tamilensis Sato,
2016, Luxiaria hypaphanes Hampson, 1891, Ophthalmitis kalakadaria
Sato, 2014, and Racotis keralaria Sato, 2004, all the moths presented in
this paper (Table 2) are new records for KMTR and, Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli
districts of Tamil Nadu, with Acanthovalva Krüger, 2001, a newly
recorded genus for southern India.
Investigations have pointed to
the possibility of some new species among the many tentatively identified or
unidentified moth records. We hope this baseline survey report will assist in
obtaining permission to collect and thus initiate a more detailed study of
moths in this region.
Box 1. Open Nomenclature
qualifiers (ON)
Abbreviations
used to indicate a taxon’s provisional status of identification are termed as
Open Nomenclature qualifiers. These qualifiers are used by researchers from
different disciplines with some variations in interpretations. The qualifiers
we have used for provisional identifications in this paper are ‘cf.’ and ‘nr’.
These terms have been used with the following interpretations:
cf. This is
short for the Latin word confero/conferatur, meaning, ‘to compare with’. We
have used it to indicate that the species identification is provisional but is
likely to be conclusive when we have more data, when it is further compared or
crosschecked with reference materials, or discussed with a specialist of the
taxon. The degree of uncertainty is less
when compared with the term ‘nr’.
nr This is short for ‘near’. This
qualifier has been used when the moth bears some similarities or resemblances
to a known species. It appears closely related but is not identical to it.
Taxon notes
Details of select genera/species
are shared below. The taxon order followed is as given in The Forum Herbulot
World List of Family Group Names in Geometridae-Forum Herbulot (2003, updated
2007).
Subfamily Sterrhinae Meyrick,
1892
Plates 1–2 (5–36)
The classification of moths of
this subfamily (Table 3) follows the most recent revision by Sihvonen et al.
(2020). Of the 34 moths observed, 31 individuals from seven tribes were
identified either to the genera or species level. Three individuals could not
be identified further. Sihvonen et al. (2020) mention in their paper that a
large number of species of this cosmopolitan family, comprising of nearly 3,000
moth-species worldwide, fall under the genera Idaea Treitschke, 1825 or Scopula
Schrank, 1802. This abundance was reflected in our survey too.
Idaea Treitschke, 1825
Plate 2 (23–30)
Idaea Treitschke, 1825 is a genus with
hundreds of small and very similar species which are difficult to identify even
with voucher specimens in hand. In their absence, we have relied on published
records and museum specimens. We report only three indivduals of Idaea
(out of the 10 individuals), whose wing patterns were unique enough to be
identified to species level. While researching to confirm Idaea gemmaria
Hampson, 1896, (Plate 2(23)), we came across Holloway’s statement in Moths of
Borneo (Holloway 1997) about the taxon “I. gemmataria”, Hampson
(Sri Lanka). On contacting Dr Holloway (pers. comm., 21.ix.2020), he clarified
that, “it was indeed an error arising at some stage between his reading the
handwritten name in the museum collection and the final appearance of his text
in print! The correct name of the
species described by Hampson was indeed I. gemmaria”. This has helped
confirm the identity of the species.
The next most common species were from the
genus Scopula Schrank, 1802 (Plates 1–2 (15–19)). Out of five
individuals observed, two have been identified to the species level.
The key given by Xue et al.
(2018) for the pattern of ocellus in the wings, descriptions and comparison
with specimens in the ZFMK ollection, were used to identify Problepsis
apollinaria Guenée, [1858] and P. deliaria Guenée, [1858] (Plate 1
(13–14)). All of the Sterrhinae listed are new records for KMTR.
Subfamily Larentiinae Duponchel,
1845
Plates 3–4 (37–60)
This is the second largest
subfamily amongst Geometridae. Worldwide, 6,200 species (Õunap et al. 2016)
have been described so far. We have recorded 24 moths from six tribes. Only
nine of them could be identified to the species level. Fourteen larentiines
reported belong to the tribe Eupitheciini Tutt, 1896. Of these, the genera Collix
Guenée, [1858] and Eois Hübner, 1818 were the most represented. Three
individuals from tribe Eupitheciini could not be identified even to the genus
level. All the larentiine moths listed are new records for this region. We also believe that there are possibilities
of new eupitheciine species from this region.
Subfamily Geometrinae Stephens,
1829
Plates 4–6 (61–101)
A large number of moths of this
subfamily being green in colour, are often referred to as emerald moths. They
were seen in large numbers at KMTR. However, the species diversity did not
match individual abundance. According to Plotkin & Kawahara (2020), the
current checklist of Geometrinae worldwide stands at 2,642 species. We recorded
41 different individuals from which 24 species from 23 genera were identified.
Three moths remained unidentified while the remaining were identified to the
level of genera or provisionally to the nearest species.
Tribe Comibaenini Inoue, 1961
Plate 4 (66–74)
Comibaena Hübner, [1823] 1816
Plate 4 (66–72)
We report four species and one
individual referred for comparison to the nearest species. Comibaena
integranota Hampson, 1893 and Comibaena attenuata Warren, 1896, are
differentiated based on the patches seen in the tornal region of forewing and
apex of the hind wing. In attenuata, the forewing patch has an irregular
projection anteriorly that is separated from the margin. Warren (1896), while
describing attenuata under the older synonym Probolosceles attenuata
Warren, 1896, has pointed out that some features of attenuata have been
mistakenly attributed to the female of integranota by Hampson (1893).
Protuliocnemis cf. biplagiata (Moore,
1887)
Plate 4 (73)
Protuliocnemis biplagiata (Moore, [1887]) and P.
castalaria (Oberthür, 1916), are similar in fasciae and genitalia. The
number of spurs found in the hind tibia (Holloway 1996) is the only feature to
distinguish the two species. Where as P. biplagata has four spurs in the
hind tibia, P. castalaria has only two ((Prout 1933, Gross-Schmett.
Erde 12: 88) in Holloway, 1996). Protuliocnemis biplagiata has been
reported from Sri Lanka and, northern & northeastern of India and P.
castalaria only from Khasi hills. This species of Protuliocnemis was
frequently observed in both the core and the buffer zone of the reserve from
the month of October to March. As the data of hind tibia spurs is not available
and based on its presence in Sri Lanka, we report this individual provisionally
as P. cf. biplagiata.
Tribe Hemitheini Bruand, 1846
Plate 5 (77–91)
We report 15 individuals
belonging to 11 genera, of which six have been identified to the level of
species; four are reported with provisional species identity and four are
identified to the genus level. A few are detailed below.
Pelagodes Holloway, 1996
Plate 5 (83)
Moths of this genus were quite
abundant in higher altitudes and found at all study sites except Talayani. The
genus Pelagodes Holloway, 1996, was identified and differentiated from
the closely resembling Thalassodes Guenée, [1858] based on the
hindwing architecture as given by Han & Xue (2011). They report that the
outer margin of the hindwing is strongly angled in Thalassodes but not
so in Pelagodes. Species level identification of Pelagodes was
not attempted in the absence of genitalia details. The presence of Thalassodes
cannot be ruled out as several individuals remained unidentified. Lack of
specimens in hand was a constraint for further investigation.
Jodis Hübner, 1823
Plate 5 (87–89)
Three species of Jodis
were observed. One has been identified to species level. One is provisionally
identified to species level while the third could not be identified beyond the
level of genus.
Jodis pallescens (Hampson, 1891)
Plate 5 (88)
Hampson (1893) has described this
taxon from Nilgiris as Thalera pallescens and the description matches
the species reported here. Prout (1934) reported it from Sri Lanka and
described J. pallescens as a distinct species due to the sharp contrast
seen between the green and the white areas. This was quite evident in the moths
we observed and the details match the field notes.
Jodis nr. undularia (Hampson,
1891)
Plate 5 (87)
Hampson (1893) described it from
Nilgiris, and misidentified it as Thalera caudularia. It is, according
to Prout (1934), widely distributed in India. A yellowish-green moth, it shows
the features matching the description given by Hampson. The vertex of the head
is white. The whitish antemedial and postmedial lines are dentate, excurved
between veins 2 and 4, giving it, at first glance, a greyish-green appearance.
The underside is white with shades of greyish-white. As Prout (1934) pointed,
the tail of the hindwing is sharp. We, therefore, suggest the species identity
tentatively, to facilitate further exploration.
Tribe Nemoriini Gumppenberg, 1887
Eucylodes albisparsa (Walker, 1861)
Plate 5 (92)
Ban et al. (2018) placed Eucylodes
in the tribe Nemoriini. However, its tribal position is reported as
uncertain in the research paper by Murillo-Ramos et al. (2019). The paper also
does not assign it to any tribe. We have retained the species in Tribe
Nemoriini, after consulting Dr Hausmann (Hausmann, pers. comm. 01.vii.2020) who
is one of the co-authors of the 2019 paper.
Eucyclodes albisparsa and E. divapala (Walker,
1861), are similar species, which fly in southern India. They are best
separated by genitalic features. However, Barlow (1982) reports that the latter
species found in southern India is more uniformly green and less contrasting
than divapala. This matches the features in the individual observed by
us. Hence, we report this moth as belonging to Eucyclodes albisparsa
complex.
Subfamily Desmobathrinae Meyrick,
1886
Plate 6 (102–105)
Four individuals from three
genera are presented here. Derambila fragilis (Butler, 1881), Noreia
ajaia Walker, 1859, Ozola microniaria Walker, 1862 and the fourth
moth belonging to the genus Ozola Walker, [1861] could not be identified
to species level.
Derambila Walker, [1863] 1862
Plate 6 (102)
Members of Derambila are
small, slender, translucent white moths. Derambila saponaria (Guenée,
[1858]) has been recorded from Travancore and Sri Lanka. Hampson (1895) records
it as Rambara saponaria Guenée from Travancore. Rambara Moore, [1887] is
currently treated as a junior synonym of Derambila (Scoble et al. 1999).
Derambila fragilis (Butler, 1881), (Taiwan), described erroneously in
the genus Zanclopteryx Herrich-Schäffer, [1855], is another similar
species. Zanclopteryx is a genus with exclusively New World species.
Prout (1921) notes that in fragilis, the antemedian lines are very few
and mostly dissolved into spots. Holloway (1996), states that D. fragilis
is also found in India and records that the wings are relatively slightly
marked and lack the brown suffusion, seen in other species. In D. saponaria,
the brown transverse markings are well expressed whereas in D. fragilis,
they are present as dots. Based on the markings on the wings and the
distribution given by Hampson & Moore, we report this species as Derambila
fragilis.
Subfamily Ennominae Duponchel,
1845
Plates 6–13 (106–274)
With no anatomical details being
available, members of the largest geometrid subfamily were the most challenging
to identify from external morphological only. Along with historical records and
published papers, the collections from ZFMK were most useful for
identification. Polymorphism was quite vivid in several genera which added to
the complexity. Explanations of our conclusions for select taxa are given
below.
Tribe Abraxini Warren, 1893
Abraxas Leach, [1815]
Plates 6–7 (106–123)
Specimens of the genus Abraxas
were found in abundant numbers in Upper Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, Sengeltheri,
and Maramalai. Materials from Kalakad, Nilgiris, and Sri Lanka available in the
collections at ZFMK were compared along with descriptions and figures published
by Hampson (1891, 1893, 1907), Swinhoe (1890, 1891), Walker (1862), Warren
(1894, 1898), and Prout (1925) for identification. Of the 15 individuals
presented here, three are identified to the level of species (Plates 6–13
(106–109)). The rest of the unidentified individuals are in varying shades of
grey and bluish-grey, with or without irregular yellow spots that ranged from
many to none on the upperside. The underside of these specimens varied from
being grey to grey with more or less irregular yellow spots and to one with a
completely yellow underside with dark fasciae (Plate 7 (115)), the latter
certainly a distinct species, the former probably variations of one species.
All these species had yellow heads. The antennae were completely black or grey.
The thorax showed varying degrees of greyness. Their legs were grey with yellow
coxa. Large black spots on the upper side of the abdominal segment, and smaller
ones on the sides and undersides were present. Based on these differences in
patterns and colours on the upper and underside, the grey Abraxas moths
and that with grey upper side and yellow underside have been categorised
tentatively as different species. We cannot rule out the fact that some of them
are probably just forms of two or more species. Hence collection is needed to
investigate further and get greater clarity of this group of moths that were
present during all seasons.
Another unidentified Abraxas was
completely yellow on upper and underside, with grey postmedial fasciae and
spots (Plate 7 (121–123)) which bore no resemblance to the two yellow
Abraxas hitherto described from southern India, namely, A. luteoaria Swinhoe,
1890 and A. germana Swinhoe, 1891. Both have been described from
Nilgiri Hills, but were not spotted at KMTR during our surveys. The second
author who is familiar with the southern Indian Abraxas species found
that the grey and the yellow series of Abraxas we have presented does
not resemble any existing species. We therefore report them as unidentified
species of Abraxas that need further investigation.
About 20 species of the genus Abraxas
have been described from southern India and Sri Lanka at the end of the 19th
century and the beginning of the 20th century. Most of them are
endemic to the Western Ghats and do not look (Plates 6–13 (110–120)) like
typical Abraxas, as known from examples seen in the Himalaya or Chinese
mountainous regions. Only A. leucostola Hampson, 1893, described from
Sri Lanka and later described from southern India by Hampson (1907) as Abraxas
argyrosticta (which is at present treated as subspecies of leucostola),
resembles the typical Abraxas. A. fasciaria (Guérin-Méneville,
1843), A. poliostrota Hampson, 1907, and A. latizonata Hampson,
1907, being white with grey or black pattern, are less similar. All the other Abraxas
species from southern India show rather untypical coloration, grey or brown or
yellow, sometimes with shining surface. Moths of the genus Abraxas are
known to be toxic and their conspicuous appearance is a very significant and
successful signal to predators which therefore avoid them, hence their
abundance in many habitats, and presence of more than a hundred species across
Europe to Australia. Why do species of southern Indian Abraxas not
exhibit the typical kind of mimicry but prefer a rather mimetic appearance is a
point for future research?
Tribe Boarmiini Duponchel, 1845
Plate 7–10 (130–190)
Cleora Curtis, 1825
Plate 8 (138–146)
Individuals identified as
Cleora alienaria (Walker, 1860), (Plates 8 (138–144)) were quite common in
KMTR. They were especially abundant in higher altitudes where they were
recorded during most months of the year, except during April and May. The
species has conspicuous pattern elements and their identity was determined with
the help of literature sources and comparison with specimens in the ZFMK
collection. Males were seen to be polymorphic; we have recorded five different
variants which made identification even more difficult. A further problem is
the existence of a very similar species, C. fraterna (Moore, 1888),
described from Sikkim. Cleora alienaria was described from Sri Lanka and
has a generally more southern distribution, but C. fraterna may perhaps
occur also in the south. Externally both are not distinguished with certainty
without details of their genitalia, which are very different. As there is no
existing record of fraterna’s presence in the south we report these as Cleora
alienaria.
Cleora acaciaria (Boisduval, 1833), reported in
Goyal’s PhD thesis (Goyal 2010; Pl. 36) from the Western Ghats is a
misidentification of C. alienaria, as is evident from the comparison of
genitalia figures depicted in the thesis and in Holloway, [1994] (Moths of
Borneo, Part 11). The name C. acaciaria is valid today only for the
species flying on Réunion Islands, extending perhaps to Mauritius.
Cleora nr injectaria (Walker
1860), (Plate 8 (145)), recorded druing the surveys, could not be
confirmed to be true injectaria from the available information including
distribution ranges, though it looks very similar to the typical, dark grey
form of injectaria that is known to fly in montane habitats, from where
this particular specimen was photographed. It is tentatively identified to the
nearest possible species as C. nr injectaria for further
investigation. True C. injectaria is known to be a lowland species,
occurring mostly at seashore-areas with mangrove and along riverines (Holloway
1994; Kendrick 2015).
Externally, Cleora sp. 3.
(Plate 8 (146)) is a member of the Carecomotis-group (Fletcher, 1953),
but it bears resemblance to several species of this group. Of these, C.
falculata (Fletcher, 1953), and C. onycha amplissima (Fletcher
1953), were reported from erstwhile Travancore. The holotype and paratype of C.
falculata and the paratype of C. onycha amplissima are from
this region. The study site from which Cleora sp. 3 was observed and
photographed was earlier part of Travancore. A very similar species of Cleora,
also of the Carecomotis-group, was recorded as C. propulsaria by
Goyal from southern India in his thesis (Goyal 2010, Plate 37). On comparison
of the genitalia Plates of C. falculata, C. onycha amplissima
(Fletcher, 1953), and C. propulsaria (Holloway, [1994]) with that
presented in his thesis, it is seen that the species reported by him is falculata
and not propulsaria. Cleora sp. 3, therefore, could belong to any
one of these three species. Without genitalic information, this remains
identified as another species of Cleora.
Ascotis Hübner, 1825
Plate 8 (147)
Ascotis cf. imparata (Walker,
1860) (Plate 8 (147), female) was a species difficult to identify. Pattern and coloration are extremely similar
to C. alienaria (Walker, 1860), but this was ruled out since this
individual had narrower wings and was larger in wingspan (>45 mm). In size,
this wingspan compared well with that reported for C. fraterna (Moore,
1888). But without any discerning characters (males of Ascotis with
simple antennae would be easy to distinguish from males of Cleora with
strongly pectinated antennae) and with scarce evidence of the presence of fraterna
in southern India we at first, provisionally identified it as a species near alienaria.
After further comparative studies the 2nd author could identify it
as a female of A. imparata, described from Nepal and “Hindostan”,
although not yet recorded from southern India. We believe that the presence of imparata
cannot be excluded and it is unlikely, that the South Indian individuals may be
members of any other closely related species.
Examination of genitalia is
needed to identify this moth which was observed frequently in KMTR.
Cusiala Moore, 1887
Plates 8–9 (148–160)
Thirteen individuals of Cusiala
Moore are reported. There are two species of Cusiala that fly in India, C.
boarmoides Moore, [1887] and C. raptaria Walker, 1860. Both
are polymorphic but at KMTR the latter was observed to be more widely
polymorphic. Cusiala boarmoides, the type species described from
Sri Lanka, flies both in northern and southern India but C. raptaria is
reported only from southern India (Hampson 1895). The only distinguishable
external difference between the two species (Moore 1887; Hampson 1895) is
the postmedial band of the hindwing. In boarmoides, it is angled beyond
the cell instead of curved as in raptaria. In the absence of any other
clearly identifiable characteristics based on external morphology, to
differentiate boarmoides from the typical raptaria of southern
India, we have presented one individual as C. boarmoides (Plate 8
(148)), and all others are designated C. raptaria.
Hampson (1895) determined the
species disterminata, rufifasciata and suiasasa as forms of C.
raptaria. Our elementary investigation suggests that these determinations,
too, need investigation. In addition, the sexual polymorphism, that this genus
displays, too, needs investigation. These three forms were not the only ones
that we found in our study sites. There were variants in the form disterminata,
a black variant form, and several other with variable wing markings were
observed. Twelve Cusiala rapataria that includes the described and
undescribed forms (Plates 8–9 (149–160)) are reported. The existence of a wide
variety of previously undescribed forms among C. raptaria require a more
thorough investigation of the genitalic features to understand this genus and
its species, as well as its sexual variations. Several other variants seen have
been omitted from this paper, for want of detailed descriptions. This further
underscores the importance of permitting collection to correctly document the
diversity and furthering the scientific knowledge.
Hypomecis Hübner, 1821
Plate 9 (164–171)
Four species of Hypomecis – H.
transcissa (Walker, 1860), H. separata (Walker, 1860), H. tamilensis
Sato, 2016 and Hypomecis pallida (Hampson, 1891), are reported in this
paper. Dark and light forms of H. separata are reported from the buffer
area of the reserve. Hypomecis tamilensis is a species that was
described from KMTR by Sato (2016). H. pallida was quite abundant in our
study sites. The females of this species are polymorphic (Plate 9 (164–167))
and were found more abundantly and frequently than males. The postmedial fasciae
on their wings varied from shades of light and dark grey with brownish or
blackish tinge.
H. pallida had been earlier described as a
member of the genus Narapa Moore, 1887, which later was placed as a
junior synonym under Hypomecis (Scoble 1999; Hausmann, pers. comm.
29.vi.2019). Preliminary studies of the type-species of Narapa, N.
adamata Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875, from Sri Lanka, by the second
author (2nd author, unpublished data), which included analysis of
male genitalia indicate that Narapa should be treated as a distinct
genus in future again.
Several individuals that bore
close resemblance to pallida, but differing in size, wing shape and
markings were observed in the study sites, especially at Kuthiraivetti and
Upper Kothayar. We believe that collection and further investigation is likely
to reveal new data.
Tribe: Caberini Duponchel, 1845
Plate 10 (191–200)
Ten individuals, belonging to
three genera, namely Astygisa Walker, 1864, Petelia
Herrich-Schäffer, 1855, and Hyperythra Guenée, [1858], are
reported.
Petelia Herrich-Schäffer, 1855
Plate 10 (191–198)
Members of this genus were common
in KMTR and were sighted during all surveys at all sites except Talayanai. Four
species of Petelia – Petelia medardaria Herrich-Schäffer, [1856],
P. immaculata Hampson, 1893, P. distracta (Walker,1860), and. P.
fasciata Moore, 1868, are reported in this paper. One individual could not
be identified to species level. All four species are differentiated by the
pattern of lines and spots on the wings.
Three almost straight, and almost
parallel transverse lines in the forewing are typical to medardaria (Plate
10 (191)). Black apical patches are sometimes present in the forewings.
A curved medial line in the
forewing, curved toward apex near costa and towards base near hind-margin is
typical to immaculata. Females of Petelia species show wide
variation, which the second author has noticed from the collections at ZFMK.
This was evident in the two individuals of immaculata we have presented.
The elements of black pattern near forewing apex which is typical of the
females in immaculata (Hampson, 1893) was present in one and absent in
another female (Plate 10 (196–197)). This pattern is lacking in males.
Identification of P. distracta
(Plate 10 (192)), was difficult as the facies of distracta bears
resemblance with that of medardaria female and P. delostigma
Prout, 1932. The fasciae, however, have some discernable differences. The
medial line in delostigma is curved more towards the tornus unlike in distracta
in which it runs straight towards the inner margin. Petelia delostigma
is larger than distracta and has not been reported from India. The black
spots in distracta lie very close to the medial line almost touching it,
whereas in the female of medardaria the spots lie well below the medial
line, closer to the outer margin of the HW. Given these differences we conclude
that the individual is P. distracta.
In P. fasciata (Plate 10
(193)), the antemedial and medial line of the forewing are diffused and
rufous-brown with the postmedian band also being rufous-brown, but ill-defined
and waved. Diffused transverse greyish fascies between the rufous bands on both
wings, a grey centred blackish discal spot in the HW and a marginal row of
black spots form the markings of this species.
The markings on the Petelia sp.
5 (Plate 10 (198)) bear similarity to immaculata, but the presence of
additional patterns on the hindwings require a more thorough investigation,
hence it remains unidentified at the species level.
Tribe: Ennomini Duponchel, 1845
Ourapteryx Leach, 1814
Plate 11 (207–209)
We report two species, the white Ourapteryx
marginata (Hampson, 1891) (Plate 11 (207)), and the yellow Ourapteryx
peermaadiata Thierry-Mieg, 1903 (Plate 11 (208)). The yellow O.
peermaadiata was first described by Thierry-Mieg in 1903. Hampson (1907)
described it again as Urapteryx ebuleata palniensis from Palani Hills,
Tamil Nadu and Inoue (1993) redescribed peermadiata placing O.
ebuleata palniensis as a junior synonym of peermaadiata. This is the
only yellow coloured Ourpateryx that flies in southern India. The third
author who is researching Ourapteryx species of India (3rd author,
unpublished data) has recorded a white morph of O. peermaadiata from
southern India which has also been recorded in KMTR (Plate 11 (209)).
Wing-shape and all pattern elements are exactly the same in both forms, but
genitalia have not been compared yet.
Comparisons of genitalia
presented by Inoue (1993) with that reported by Goyal in his PhD thesis (Goyal
2010, Plate 57) show that O. peermaadiata has been incorrectly described
as O devikulamensis sp. n.
Tribe Eutoeini Holloway, 1994
Plate 11 (210–219)
Zeheba Moore, [1887]
Plate 11 (216–219)
Four individuals that we report
are only tentatively identified. The second author has compared these
individuals (Plate 11 (216–219)) to the material of an undescribed Zeheba
from Sri Lanka in the ZFMK collection. Based on external morphology, these
individuals from KMTR resemble the material at the museum.
Males and females of Zeheba
are easily distinguished. While both have simple, unpectinated antennae, the
hindwing margin is dentate in males, but is smooth, broader and angled in the
middle (at vein M3) in females (Plate 11 (216)). Zeheba marginata that
Moore (1884) describes and figures in Lepidoptera of Ceylon (Moore, 1884–7) is
a female of the yet-to-be described Zeheba species from Sri Lanka. True Z.
marginata was described from Java by Walker in 1886 and is likely to be
extralimital to India. The female we report is very similar to the female
described by Moore, erroneously as Z. marginata.
The presence of this undescribed
species in southern India is further confirmed from another erroneous record of
Zeheba marginata in Goyal’s PhD thesis (Goyal 2011; pl. 1). The genitalia details of the male presented
in the thesis are identical to the male genitalia of the undescribed Sri Lankan
material in ZFMK collection, which the second author has dissected and studied
(2nd author, unpublished data).
These individuals (Plate 11
(216–218)) also bear strong resemblance to Z. aureata Moore, [1887], a
Himalayan species, but the genitalia of the aureata are quite distinctly
different (2nd author, unpublished data). We report them tentatively
as Z. nr aureata but they require a detailed investigation to
confirm the species identity.
The individual in Plate 11 (219)
is a male which is larger than the other three Individuals, half-white (or
pale-yellow), including the broader wing borders, and with almost-hyaline basal
part of hindwing. Without genitalic details its identity cannot be determined
with certainty, but likely belongs to Z. aureatoides Holloway, [1994],
described from Borneo, but with a wider distribution to Sulawesi and Peninsular
Malaysia (Holloway, [1994]; coll. ZFMK), Thailand, Myanmar (coll. ZFMK,
unrecorded) and perhaps, as a new record, to southern India. Examination of
specimens would be necessary to investigate further to prove this.
Tribe Hypochrosini Guenée, 1858
Plates 11–12 (221–246)
Achrosis Guenée, [1858]
Plates 11 (221–223); Plate 12
(226–230)
Several individuals of the genus Achrosis
were observed, mostly in the wet evergreen or moist deciduous habitats. Of
the seven individuals of this genus presented in this paper, A. intexta
(Swinhoe, 1891) (Plate 11 (223)) is identified with certainty, because of its
conspicuous pattern and coloration and as it is the only species of the intexta-group
known from South India (type-locality: Kanara, southwestern India). Other
species of the intexta-group are known from Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo
and Sumatra (Holloway [1994], the Philippines (ZFMK, not yet recorded).
We report another two individuals
(Plate 11 (221 & 222)) with pattern and coloration of Achrosis incitata
(Walker, 1862) (type-locality: northern India, Darjeeling). Both of them differ
considerably from each other and may be members of two different species. From
southern India (Nilgiri Hills), Swinhoe (1891) described Zomia miscella
as new to science which Hampson (1895) synonymized with “Prionia” incitata,
indicating that incitata flies throughout India. Swinhoe later opines
that miscella is a southern form of incitata. A further species
of this group was described from Sri Lanka as Timandra? serpentinaria
(Walker, 1866), which certainly may also occur in the extreme south of India.
Identification of two Individuals we recorded of the incitata-group is
only possible by dissection of genitalia; hence further investigation is
required.
Holloway (1994) described a new
species close to A. incitata from Borneo and Sumatra and in the process
reviewed what he calls the incitata complex. According to him almost all
species of this complex are allopatric (except his new Bornean species which
overlaps with the Sumatran species) and all are distinguished by differences in
the male genitalia.
The two individuals we report as A.
incitata (Plate 11 (221 & 222)) may be one among the three species of incitata
complex that fly in southern India or Sri Lanka or they could be a new
species of the incitata complex. Further investigation is required.
We also report one unattributed
species, Achrosis sp. 4 (Plate 12 (226–230)). The ZFMK, too, has
specimens of this species that do not match any described so far in their
collection. More than one form of the male was observed but only a single
female was spotted during the survey. Neither Achrosis sp. 4 nor the incitata
complex resemble Achrosis euchroes (Prout, 1917), described from
Nilgiris, which also does not find
mention in the incitata-complex described by Holloway [1994], as it did
not occur in Borneo.
Celenna festivaria (Fabricius, 1794)
Plates 11–12 (224–225)
Two forms of Celenna
festivaria Fabricius were found flying from March to August. They were
found only in two sites of the survey (Table 3). The typical form of festivaria
where the green patches are separated in the forewing, was less frequently seen
than the form where the green bands were fused completely (Plate 11 (224)) and
formed a large green patch on the FW. Although this species is common in India,
there has been no report of racial differences so far. This form with the large
fused bands that is dominant in Taiwan was named formosensis by Inoue
(1964) and treated as a subspecies of festivaria. Holloway [1994]
reports that the genitalia of ssp. formosensis described by Inoue
resemble those of the Indian nominal subspecies C. festivaria festivaria
and he therefore confirms it as a subspecies.
Celenna centraria Snellen, 1880, described from
Sumatra, but also occurring in Borneo, is reported by Kirti et al.
(2019) as found in the Andaman Islands. The fused pattern on the forewing of centraria
is quite different from the species we are reporting here. Holloway [1994]
states and figures that the genitalia of centraria differ strongly from
those of festivaria. Until further investigation is undertaken, we
report both forms as C. festivaria.
Fascellina chromataria Walker, 1860
Plate 12 (234–238)
These moths were seen from the
month of June onwards till November. Four males and one female recorded is
presented here. Sexual dimorphism is well marked; the female was
yellowish-brown with cream coloured antemedial and postmedial lines. The
postmedial line had cream spots at regular intervals. The wing colour in males
ranged from shades of greenish-brown, brown to black (Plate 12 (235–238)). The
submarginal fascia was white in three forms, while in the fourth, the brown
form, there was merely a white speck near the excavated tornal margin (Plate 12
(237)). Each of the differently coloured forms were seen in different months
and did not fly together.
The hindwing of the underside of
the males were chrome-yellow, as their name suggests. The basal parts of the
forewing were yellow, red-brown around the postmedial line; the postmedial
regions being a mix of brownish-red. A greyish angled line and a patch near the
apex of FW was also observed. Fascellina chromataria was described from
Sri Lanka, and it has been reported from the Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary in
Kerala (Sondhi et al. 2018). Forests of KMTR and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary
are part of Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve. The female seen in KMTR (Plate 12
(234)) is similar to the female collected and identified from Shendurney and
therefore is identified as Fascellina chromataria. As we also observed
more than one form of chromataria males, we report this group of four
males and one female as Fascellina chromataria complex. Examination of
specimens are needed to determine whether the individuals of this complex are
morphs, subspecies or different species.
Hypochrosis hyadaria (Guenée, [1858]) - H. chlorozonaria
(Walker, 1861)
Plate 12 (239–241)
Hypochrosis hyadaria is treated at present as a
single species with a large number of described subspecies (Holloway [1994];
Scoble et al. 1999), distributed allopatrically from India, over large areas of
southeastern Asia and the Malayan archipelago. Hypochrosis chlorozonaria
Walker, 1861, described from Sri Lanka, is treated as a related, but distinct
species. It was later described again as Numaria galbulata (Felder &
Rogenhofer, 1875) and Marcala sulphurescens (Moore, [1887]), from Sri
Lanka. Hypochrosis galbulata and H. sulphurescens are just
different forms of the same variable species, chlorozonaria. Unlike the
description of hyadaria given by Hampson (1895), the facies described by
Moore for these two forms of chlorozonaria match well with the facies of
the individuals (Plate 12 (239–241)) we have recorded. Holloway (1994) states,
“India through S.E. Asia”, as the geographical range for hydaria.
Evidence of hyadaria flying in southern India comes from the surveys at
Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary by Yash Sondhi (Sondhi et al. 2018). It is
possbile that both the species—hyadaria and chlorozonaria—could
be found flying together in this region. Investigations through examination of
the genitalia of collected specimens alone can provide their correct identity.
Therefore, we report these three individuals as forms of Hypochrosis
hyadaria or chlorozonaria.
Tribe Macariini Guenée, 1858
Plate 12–13 (250–269)
The identities of various moths
in this tribe were investigated by referring to Krüger’s (2001) extensive work
on African species and a range of global macariine species, and the review of
this tribe by Scoble & Krüger (2002). The details given in the works of
Hampson (1891, 1895), Moore (1884–7), and Walker (1862) were also consulted.
Some macariine genera can be identified based on wing colour, shape, and
pattern (Scoble & Krüger 2002). However, genitalia structure is the most
reliable feature for identification of moths from this tribe.
The macariine taxonomy is still
in flux as several species from the Oriental region, including some from India,
have not yet been described, as is evident from this paper. Nineteen macariine
individuals have been observed and are classified here in three genera, namely,
Acanthovalva Krüger, 2001, Chiasmia Hübner, [1823] 1816,
and Isturgia Hübner, [1823] 1816.
Acanthovalva Krüger, 2001
Plate 12 (250)
The general features of this moth
match the description given for Acanthovalva by Krüger (2001). Further
investigation about the species requires collection and examination of
genitalia. Although he could not examine any specimens, Krüger suggests that Tephrina
fumosa (Hampson, 1895) from Nilgiris may be closely related to Acanthovalva
bilineata (Warren, 1895) from South Africa, extending, if verified, the
range of this genus to the Oriental region. This is the first record of the
genus Acanthovalva from southern India.
Chiasmia Hübner, [1823] 1816
Plate 12–13 (251–266)
Fourteen macariine species
belonging to the genus Chiasmia Hübner are reported. Four of them could
be identified only to genus level. One is presented with a provisional
identification and nine of them are identified to species level using the
various published records listed throughout in this paper.
We report here that the ZFMK has
a group of four specimens named C. ablataria Swinhoe, collected from the
Nilgiri Hills. Externally, they bear close resemble to the unidentified Chiasmia
sp. 13 (Plate 13 (265)). However, our research did not yield any more
information, such as the year Swinhoe described this species, whether it is a
synonym for a described taxon or any literature on it. The name is missing even
from the list in Scoble et al. (1999.) This, again, underscores the importance
of collecting moths for an accurate description and identification.
Isturgia Hübner, [1823] 1816
Plate 13 (267–269)
Isturgia disputaria (Guenée, [1858])
The various species of Isturgia
have been broadly placed under five groups by Krüger (2001). One of them is the
Isturgia disputaria group. We report two taxa that belong to it. Both
are tentatively identified, as details of genitalia are not available.
We have identified a female from
Talayanai (Plate 13 (269)) as Isturgia disputaria Guenée. It is
identified by the strong, black fasciae of the forewings. The description of
the fasciae matches that given by Hampson (1895). Hampson (1895) also states
that the southern Western Ghats forms appear generally paler and ochreous.
Krüger (2001) mentions that the HW median line in disputaria may be
faint or absent, while Hampson records the HW “with sinuous median line”. These
lines are partly visible in our Plate, but minor variations in fascia could
also be a geographical phenomenon, in our opinion.
The second taxon (Plate 13
(267–268)) we report as Isturgia—a male and a female observed at
Maramalai (a higher elevation site in the buffer zone of the Reserve)—also
belongs to the I. disputaria group. It bears some
resemblance to the former taxon, but has much weaker transverse fasciae. It may
be just a form or variation of the latter, but may also be related to or
conspecific with I. pulinda (Walker, 1860), from Sri Lanka. A year
later, Walker (1861) described another Isturgia, I. deerraria,
from South Africa, which was subsequently reported by several authors ((Agenjo
1974: 4; Herbulot 1978: 161; Fletcher 1978a: 77; Wiltshire 1952: 172; 1980:
197; 1990: 135; Hermosa 1985: 28; Hausmann 1991: 138) in Krüger (2001) as a
subspecies of I. pulinda. Krüger (2001), after examining the genitalia
of the type-specimens, concluded that the African species I. deeraria
was not conspecific with I. pulinda. Based on the fasciae we believe
that this Isturgia from Maramalai may be related to I. pulinda or
may even be a new species. The real identity can only be decided after the
study of the genitalia of collected Individuals.
Isturgia catalaunaria Guenée, [1858] was also listed
as a macariine species from India (Kirti et al. 2019). Krüger (2001) has
recorded this to be a misidentification, as this is a species from southern
Spain and southern Africa, so extralimital to India.
Conclusion
Investigating 390 moths through
photographs and without specimens in hand to refer to, was a daunting task. In
the absence of specimens, we have attempted to assign as precise species
identities as deemed possible, but many uncertainties in species identities can
only be clarified through collection and examination of specimens. We have also
attempted to compile the many historical records that lay scattered among
different resources, and contemporary published papers on Geometridae, for easy
access to future researchers. Many geometrids are flower feeders, hence
important pollinators of plants in forests. Their presence is likely to help
forests flourish. As most geometrids are polyphagous, their varied larval host
plants are also crucial, and require protection of their habitats in the
Western Ghats, an area of high endemism. Given the diversity observed by the
first author in these forests, we hope that these preliminary findings will
stimulate further research on the geometrid moths of KMTR.
Table 1. Location of study sites
along with elevation, habitat, and timeline.
|
|
Place |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Elevation in metres |
Habitat type |
Timeline in years |
|
1 |
Talayanai |
8.526°N |
77.502°E |
224 |
Riparian |
2012, 2015 |
|
2 |
Sengeltheri |
8.534°N |
77.45°E |
984 |
Semi-evergreen |
2012, 2015 |
|
3 |
Kuthiraivetti |
8.5931°N |
77.352°E |
1,146 |
Moist deciduous |
2012–14, 2019 |
|
4 |
Upper Kothayar |
8.527°N |
77.359°E |
1,286 |
Evergreen and montane |
2012–14, 2018, 2019 |
|
5 |
Mundanthurai |
8.6563°N |
77.3332°E |
250 |
Riverine and dry deciduous |
2012, 2015 |
|
6 |
Kannikatti |
8.732°N |
77.226°E |
762 |
Wet evergreen and riparian |
2013 |
|
7 |
Maramalai |
8.45°N |
77.4°E |
500 |
Mixed forest and estates |
2012, 2015 |
|
8 |
Kalikesam |
8.41°N |
77.338°E |
115 |
Riparian |
2011–2014 |
Table 2. Summary of subfamilies,
genera and species presented.
|
|
Subfamily |
Genera |
Species with confirmed identity |
Species with conditional
identity |
Species not identified |
|
1 |
Sterrhinae Meyrick, 1892 |
12 |
13 |
5 |
3 |
|
2 |
Larentiinae Duponchel, 1845 |
13 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
3 |
Geometrinae Stephens, 1829 |
23 |
24 |
7 |
3 |
|
4 |
Desmobathrinae Meyrick, 1886 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
Ennominae Duponchel, 1845 |
47 |
59 |
20 |
11 |
Table 3. Checklist of geometrids
of Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.
|
|
S. Family/ Genus |
Tribe/ Species |
Author & Year: S. Family/Tribe/ Genus/ Species |
Location |
Month and Year of survey |
|
|
Sterrhinae Meyrick,1892 |
Cosymbiini |
Prout, 1911 |
|
|
|
1 |
Chrysocraspeda |
sp.1 |
Swinhoe,
1893 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
2 |
Chrysocraspeda |
sp.2 |
Swinhoe,
1893 |
Kannikatti,
Kuthiraivetti |
Feb 2013,
Mar 2014 |
|
3 |
Perixera |
insitiva |
(Prout,
1920) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
|
|
Cyllopodini |
Kirby, 1892 |
|
|
|
4 |
Organopoda |
sp. |
Hampson,
1893 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Oct 2018 |
|
|
|
Lissoblemmini |
Sihvonen
& Staude, 2020 |
|
|
|
5 |
Lissoblemma |
lunuliferata |
(Walker,
[1863]) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Oct 2018 |
|
6 |
Craspediopsis |
sp. |
Warren,
1895 |
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Rhodometrini |
Agenjo,
1952 |
|
|
|
7 |
Traminda |
aventiaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
8 |
Traminda |
mundissima -
3 forms |
(Walker,1861) |
Mundanthurai,
Talayanai, Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2012,
Oct 2012, Feb 2015,
Dec 2012 |
|
|
|
Scopulini |
Duponchel,
1845 |
|
|
|
9 |
Problepsis |
deliaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri, Upper Kothayar, Maramalai |
Dec 2011,
2012, 2019, Oct 2012,
June 2013, Feb
2012 |
|
10 |
Problepsis |
appollinaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
11 |
Scopula |
divisaria |
Walker,
1861 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2013 |
|
13 |
Scopula |
fibulata |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Kannikatti |
Feb 2013 |
|
14 |
Scopula |
nr relictata |
(Walker,
1866) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2014 |
|
15 |
Scopula |
nr actuaria |
(Walker,
1861) |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
16 |
Scopula |
sp.6 |
Schrank,
1802 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
17 |
Somatina |
nr plynusaria
|
(Walker,
[1863]) |
Sengeltheri |
Oct 2012 |
|
18 |
Somatina |
rosacea |
Swinhoe,
1894 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2014 |
|
19 |
Somatina or nr |
|
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kannikatti,
Upper Kothayar |
Feb 2013,
Mar 2014 |
|
|
|
Sterrhini |
Meyrick,
1892 |
|
|
|
20 |
Lophophleps |
phoenicoptera |
(Hampson,
1896) |
Kalikesam |
Jul 2014 |
|
21 |
Lophophleps |
purpurea |
Hampson,
1891 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
22 |
Idaea |
gemmaria |
Hampson,
1896 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
23 |
Idaea |
nr gemmaria
|
Hampson,
1896 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
24 |
Idaea |
violaceae |
Hampson,
1891 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
25 |
Idaea |
sp.4 |
Treitschke,
1825 |
Sengeltheri,
Upper Kothayar |
Oct 2012,
Feb 2015, Mar 2014 |
|
26 |
Idaea |
sp.5 |
Treitschke,
1825 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
27 |
Idaea |
sp.6 |
Treitschke,
1825 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
28 |
Idaea |
sp.7 |
Treitschke,
1825 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
28 |
Idaea |
sp.8 |
Treitschke,
1825 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2014 |
|
|
|
Timandrini |
Stephens,
1850 |
|
|
|
29 |
Timandra |
sp. |
Duponchel,
1829 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2013 |
|
30 |
Unidentified Sterrhinae -3 |
|
Meyrick,
1892 |
Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Feb 2015,
Feb 2012 |
|
|
Larentiinae Duponchel, 1845 |
Asthenini |
|
|
|
|
31 |
Acolutha |
pictaria |
(Moore,
1888) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
32 |
Polynesia |
sunandava |
(Walker,
1861) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019 |
|
|
|
Cidariini |
Duponchel,
1845 |
|
|
|
33 |
Ecliptopera |
dissecta |
(Moore,
[1887]) |
Upper
Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, |
Jun 2013,
Jan 2019 |
|
34 |
Ecliptopera |
muscicolor |
(Moore,
1888) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2018 |
|
35 |
Chloroclystis |
sp. |
Hübner,
[1825] |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Incertae sedis |
|
|
|
|
36 |
Physetobasis |
annulata |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
|
|
Eupitheciini |
Tutt, 1896 |
|
|
|
37 |
Bosara |
albitornalis |
(Prout,
1958) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
38 |
Eupithecia |
sp. |
Curtis,
1825 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
39 |
Collix |
sp.1 |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
40 |
Collix |
sp.2 |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Marmalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
41 |
Collix |
sp.3 |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Marmalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
42 |
Eois |
sp.4 |
Hübner,1818 |
Marmalai |
Feb 2012,
2015 |
|
43 |
Eois |
sp.5 |
Hübner,1818 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
44 |
Eois |
cf. dissimilis
|
(Moore,1887) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
45 |
Eois |
lunulosa form ochraceae |
(Moore,
[1887]) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
46 |
Gymnoscelis |
cf.
admixtaria |
(Walker,
1862) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
47 |
Ziridava |
rubridisca |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Oct 2018 |
|
|
|
Trichopterygini |
Warren,
1894 |
|
|
|
48 |
Sauris |
sp.1 |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
49 |
Sauris |
sp.2 |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Sengeltheri |
Oct 2012 |
|
|
|
Xanthorhoini |
Pierce,
1914 |
|
|
|
50 |
Xanthorhoe |
saturata |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
51 |
Unidentified
Eupethiciini-3 |
|
Duponchel,
1845 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014 |
|
|
Geometrinae Stephens,1829 |
Agathiini |
Ban &
Han, 2018 |
|
|
|
52 |
Agathia |
hemithearia |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper kothayar |
Mar 2014,
Jan 2019 |
|
53 |
Agathia |
lycaenaria |
(Kollar,
1844) |
Upper Kothayar |
Jul 2018 |
|
54 |
Agathia |
laetata |
(Fabricius,
1794) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
|
|
Archaeobalbini |
Viidalepp,
1981 |
|
|
|
55 |
Herochroma |
cf. cristata |
Warren,
1894 |
Maramalai,
Upper Kothayar |
Feb 2012,
Mar 2014 |
|
56 |
Lophophelma |
ruficosta |
Hampson, 1891 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Jan 2019,
Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Comibaenini |
Inoue, 1961 |
|
|
|
57 |
Argyrocosma |
inductaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Talayanai, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2015, Feb 2012 |
|
58 |
Chlorochromodes |
sp. |
Warren,
1896 |
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
59 |
Comibaena |
attenuata |
(Warren,
1896) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
60 |
Comibaena |
cassidara |
Guenée,
[1858]) |
Mundanthurai,
Upper Kothayar, Maramalai |
Mar 2012,
Oct 2016, Feb 2012 |
|
61 |
Comibaena |
cf.
striataria |
Leech, 1897 |
Mundanthurai |
Mar 2012 |
|
62 |
Comibaena |
integranota |
Hampson,
1893 |
Sengeltheri,
Maramalai |
Feb 2015,
Feb 2012 |
|
63 |
Comibaena |
fuscidorsata |
Prout, 1912 |
Upper
Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2016,
Jan 2019 |
|
64 |
Protuliocnemis |
cf. biplagiata
|
(Moore,
[1887]) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Oct 2012,
Feb 2012 |
|
65 |
Protuliocnemis |
partita |
(Walker,
1861) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jan 2019 |
|
|
|
Dysphaniini |
Warren,
1895 |
|
|
|
66 |
Dysphania |
percota |
(Swinhoe,
1891) |
Kalikesam |
Jul 2014 |
|
|
|
Geometrini |
Stephens,
1829 |
|
|
|
67 |
Cyclothea |
disjuncta |
(Walker,
1861) |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Hemitheini |
Bruand,
1846 |
|
|
|
68 |
Comostola sp |
sp. |
Meyrick,
1888 |
Sengeltheri,
Kuthirai-vetti, Maramalai |
Oct 2012,
Jan 2019, Feb 2012 |
|
69 |
Episothalma |
robustaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Dec 2011 |
|
70 |
Hemithea |
tritonaria |
(Walker,
[1863]) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jul 2018 |
|
71 |
Hemithea |
wuka |
(Pagenstecher,
1886) |
Kalikesam |
Jul 2014 |
|
72 |
Idiochlora |
nr caudularia |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri |
Mar 2014,
Feb 2015 |
|
73 |
Orothalassodes |
hypocrites |
(Prout,
1912) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar |
Jan 2019 |
|
74 |
Pelagodes |
sp. |
Holloway,
1996 |
All sites
except Talayanai |
Mar 2011,
Dec 2012, Mar 2013,
June 2014, Feb
2012,’15, Jan 2019 |
|
75 |
Pentheochlora |
cf. uniformis |
Hampson,
1891 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
76 |
Spaniocentra |
sp. |
Prout, 1912 |
Maramalai |
Mar 2012 |
|
77 |
Berta |
cf. chrysolineata
|
Walker,
1863 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Oct 2018 |
|
78 |
Jodis |
nr undularia |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
79 |
Jodis |
pallescens |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
80 |
Jodis |
sp.3 |
Hübner,
[1823] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Jun 2013 |
|
81 |
Microloxia |
indecretata |
(Walker,
[1863]) |
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
82 |
Microloxia |
sp.2 |
Warren,
1893 |
Mundanthurai |
Mar 2012 |
|
|
|
Nemoriini |
Gumppenberg,
1887 |
|
|
|
83 |
Eucyclodes |
gavissima |
(Walker,
1861) |
Sengeltheri |
Oct 2012 |
|
84 |
Eucyclodes |
albisparsa complex |
(Walker,
1861) |
Sengeltheri |
Oct 2012 |
|
|
|
Ornithospilini |
Ban &
Han, 2018 |
|
|
|
85 |
Ornithospila |
lineata |
(Moore,
1872) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Jan 2019 |
|
86 |
Ornithospila |
submonstrans |
(Walker,
1861) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019 |
|
|
|
Pseudoterpnini |
Warren,
1893 |
|
|
|
88 |
Pingasa |
dispensata M, F |
(Walker,
1866) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
89 |
Pingasa |
ruginaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Upper
Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Kuthiraivetti, Maramalai |
Mar 2014,
Feb 2015, Dec 2012,
Jan 2019, Feb 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
90 |
Unidentified Geometrinae-3 |
|
Leach, 1815 |
Maramalai,
Mundanthurai |
Feb 2012,
Mar 2012 |
|
|
Desmobathrinae Meyrick,1886 |
Desmobathrini |
Meyrick,
1886 |
|
|
|
91 |
Noreia |
ajaia M |
(Walker,
1859) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2013 |
|
92 |
Ozola |
microniaria |
Walker,
1862 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri |
Mar 2014,
Feb 2015 |
|
93 |
Ozola |
sp. |
Walker,
1861 |
Sengeltheri
|
Feb 2015 |
|
94 |
Derambila |
fragilis |
(Butler,
1881) |
Sengeltheri
|
Feb 2015 |
|
|
Ennominae Duponchel,1845 |
Abraxini |
Warren,
1894 |
|
|
|
95 |
Abraxas |
leucostola argyrosticta |
Hampson, 1893 |
Upper
Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, Maramalai |
Jan 2019,
Dec 2012, Feb 2012 |
|
96 |
Abraxas |
fasciaria |
Guerin-Meneville,
1843 |
Sengeltheri,
Upper Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, |
Oct. 2012,
Jan 2019 |
|
97 |
Abraxas |
Poliostrota M, F |
Hampson,
1907 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec. 2012 |
|
98 |
Abraxas |
(grey)sp.4 |
Leach,
[1815] 1830 |
Upper
Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
Oct 2013, Feb 2015,
Jan 2019 |
|
99 |
Abraxas |
(grey)sp.5 |
Leach,
[1815]1830 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
100 |
Abraxas |
(grey)sp.6 |
Leach,
[1815]1830 |
Upper
Kothayar, |
Jan 2019,
Feb 2012. |
|
101 |
Abraxas |
(grey)sp.7 |
Leach,
[1815]1830 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jan 2019 |
|
102 |
Abraxas |
(grey)sp. 3
forms |
Leach,
[1815]1830 |
Upper
Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, Sengeltheri, Maramalai. |
Jan 2019,
June 2013, Mar 2014, Feb 2015, Feb 2012 |
|
103 |
Abraxas |
(yellow)sp.8 |
Leach,
[1815]1830 |
Upper
Kothayar, Sengeltheri |
Mar 2014,
Mar 2019, Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Baptini |
Forbes,
1948 |
|
|
|
106 |
Borbacha |
cf.
pardaria |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti,
Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2012 |
|
107 |
Synegia |
imitaria |
(Walker,
1861) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
108 |
Yashmakia |
erythra M |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Upper
Kothayar |
June 2018 |
|
109 |
Yashmakia |
conflagrata F |
(Hampson,
1912) |
Upper
Kothayar |
June 2018 |
|
110 |
Lomographa |
inamata |
(Walker,
[1861]1860) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019, Feb 2012 |
|
111 |
Platycerota |
vitticostata |
(Walker,
[1863]) |
Upper
Kothayar |
June 2013 |
|
|
|
Boarmiini |
Duponchel,
1845 |
|
|
|
112 |
Alcis |
nilgirica |
Hampson,
1891 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
June 2013 Mar 2014,
Oct 2012, Feb 2015 |
|
113 |
Amblychia |
cf.
angeronaria |
Guenée,
1858 |
Maramalai,
Upper Kothayar |
Feb 2012,
June 2018 |
|
114 |
Amraica |
recursaria |
Walker,
1860 |
Sengeltheri,
|
Feb 2015 |
|
115 |
Catoria |
cf.
sublavaria F |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2015, Jan 2019 |
|
116 |
Chorodna |
strixaria |
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
117 |
Cleora |
alienaria M 5 forms |
Walker,
1860 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Marmalai |
Dec 2012,
June 2013, Jan 2019,
Feb 2012, 2015 |
|
118 |
Cleora |
alienaria F |
(Walker,
1860) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Jan 2019 |
|
119 |
Cleora |
sp.3 |
Curtis,
1825 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Jan 2019 |
|
120 |
Cleora |
injectaria or nr. |
(Walker,1860) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
121 |
Ascotis |
cf.
imparata F |
(Walker,
1860) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019 |
|
122 |
Cusiala |
boarmoides |
Moore,
[1887] |
Talayanai,
Sengeltheri |
Oct 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
123 |
Cusiala |
raptaria |
Walker,
1860 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
125 |
Cusiala |
raptaria form disterminata |
Walker,
1860 |
Mundanthurai |
Mar 2012 |
|
126 |
Cusiala |
raptaria distermi-nata-variant |
Walker,
1860 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Talayanai |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
127 |
Cusiala |
raptaria distermi-nata-variant |
Walker,
1860 |
Kuthiraivetti,
|
Dec 2012 |
|
128 |
Cusiala |
raptaria form rufifasciata |
Walker,
1860 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
129 |
Cusiala |
raptaria
form suiasasa M |
Walker,
1860 |
Mundanthurai,
Kuthiraivetti |
Feb 2015,
Dec 2012 |
|
130 |
Cusiala |
raptaria-6 forms |
Walker,
1860 |
Mundanthurai,
Kuthiraivetti, Talayani, Sengeltheri |
Mar 2012,
Oct 2012, Dec 2012, Feb 2015, Jan 2019 |
|
131 |
Ectropis |
cf. dentilineata |
(Moore,
1868) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Jan 2019 |
|
132 |
Ectropis |
bhurmitra |
(Walker,
1860) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
133 |
Dasyboarmia |
cf.
inouei |
(Sato,
1987) |
Sengeltheri,
Kuthiraivetti |
Feb 2015 March 2014 |
|
134 |
Gasterocome |
polyspathes |
Prout,1934 |
Upper
Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Mar 2014,
Oct 2012, Feb 2015,
Feb 2012 |
|
135 |
Hypomecis |
pallida 1M, 4F |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2013 |
|
136 |
Hypomecis |
trancissa |
(Walker,
1860) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
137 |
Hypomecis |
tamilensis |
Sato, 2016 |
Mundanthurai,
Talayanai |
Mar 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
138 |
Hypomecis |
separata |
(Walker,
1860) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
139 |
Hyposidra |
talaca |
(Walker,
1860) |
Upper
Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti, Maramalai |
Feb 2012,
Dec 2012. Mar 2014 |
|
140 |
Hyposidra |
violescens M, F |
Hampson,
1895 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2012 |
|
141 |
Hyposidra |
sp. 3 |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jan 2019 |
|
142 |
Ophthalmitis |
cf. herbidaria
|
(Guenée,
[1858]) |
Sengeltheri |
Oct 2012 |
|
143 |
Ophthalmitis |
kalakadaria |
Sato, 2014 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
144 |
Psilalcis |
cf. subtochracea
M, F |
(Hampson,
1902) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri, Talayanai, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019, Oct 2012.
Feb 2015, Feb 2012 |
|
145 |
Psilalcis |
sp.2 |
Warren,
1893 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
146 |
Psilalcis |
sp.3 |
Warren,
1893 |
Sengeltheri |
Feb 2015 |
|
147 |
Psilalcis |
sp.4 |
Warren,
1893 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
148 |
Racotis |
keralaria |
Sato, 2004 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019, Feb 2015,
Feb 2012 |
|
149 |
Ruttellerona |
cf. cessaria |
(Walker,
1860) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
150 |
Ruttellerona |
cf. pseudocessaria |
Holloway,
[1994] |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jan 2019 |
|
151 |
Biston |
strigaria |
(Moore,
1879) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2015, Feb 2012 |
|
|
|
Unidentified Boarmiini |
Duponchel,
1845 |
Kuthiraivetti |
June 2013 |
|
|
|
Caberini |
Duponchel,
1845 |
|
|
|
152 |
Astygisa |
sp. |
Walker,
1864 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
153 |
Petelia |
medardaria M |
Herrich-Schäffer,
[1856] |
Maramalai,
Upper Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti |
Feb 2012,
Jun 2013, Jan 2019,
Dec 2012, Mar 2014,
Jan 2019 |
|
154 |
Petelia |
distracta
F |
(Walker,
1860) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri, Upper Kothayar |
Dec 2012,
Oct 2012, Feb 2015,
Jan 2019 |
|
155 |
Petelia |
immaculata
2M, 2F |
Hampson,
1893 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Jan 2019 |
|
156 |
Petelia |
fasciata |
Moore, 1868 |
|
|
|
157 |
Petelia |
sp.3 |
Herrich-Schäffer,
1855 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
158 |
Hyperythra |
lutea |
(Stoll,
[1781]) |
Upper Kothayar |
Mar 2014 |
|
|
|
Cassymini |
Holloway,
1994 |
|
|
|
159 |
Heterostegane |
subtessellata M, F |
(Walker,
[1863]) |
All sites |
Feb 2012,
2015, Mar 2012,
2014, June 2014,
Jan 2019 |
|
160 |
Heterostegane |
cf. tritocampsis
M, F |
(Prout,
1934) |
Sengeltheri,
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
161 |
Heterostegane |
sp.3 |
Hampson,
1893 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2015 |
|
162 |
Zamarada |
cf. excisa |
Hampson,
1891 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Oct 2012, Feb 2012 |
|
|
|
Ennomini |
Duponchel,
1845 |
|
|
|
163 |
Ourapteryx |
marginata |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Kannikatti, Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2013, Mar 2014,
Oct 2015, Feb 2012,
2015 |
|
164 |
Ourapteryx |
peermaadiata-yellow and white |
Thierry-Mieg,
1903 |
Kuthiraivetti-yellow Upper
Kothayar-both |
Mar 2014 |
|
|
|
Eutoeini |
Holloway,
1994 |
|
|
|
165 |
Calletaera |
postvittata |
(Walker,
1861) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2018 |
|
166 |
Luxiaria |
emphatica |
Prout, 1925 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
167 |
Luxiaria |
hypaphanes M |
Hampson,
1891 |
Sengeltheri,
Kuthiraivetti, Upper Kothayar |
Oct 2012,
Dec 2012, Jan 2019,
Mar 2014 |
|
168 |
Luxiaria |
phyllosaria |
(Walker,
1860) |
Upper
kothayar |
Jan 2019 |
|
169 |
Luxiaria |
sp.4 |
Walker,
1860 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Jan 2019 |
|
170 |
Zeheba |
nr aureata
2M, 1F |
Moore,
[1887] |
Sengeltheri, |
Oct 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
171 |
Zeheba |
cf. aureatoides |
Holloway, [1994] |
Sengeltheri,
Kuthiraivetti |
Feb 2015,
Dec 2012 |
|
|
|
Gonodontini |
Forbes,
1948 |
|
|
|
172 |
Gonodontis |
pallida |
(Butler,
1880) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
|
|
Hypochrosini |
Guenée,
1858 |
|
|
|
173 |
Fasceliina |
plagiata |
(Walker,
1866) |
Upper
Kothayar, Maramalai, |
Feb 2012 |
|
174 |
Fasceliina |
Chromataria-M5 forms, 1F |
Walker,
1860 |
Upper
Kothayar |
Oct 2018 |
|
175 |
Achrosis |
incitata complex-2 forms |
(Walker,
1862) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar |
Mar 2014,
Jan 2018 |
|
176 |
Achrosis |
intexta |
(Swinhoe,
1891) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2014 |
|
177 |
Achrosis |
sp.4 4M |
Guenée,
[1858] |
All sites |
All survey
years. |
|
178 |
Achrosis |
sp.4 1F |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
179 |
Achrosis |
sp. 4F |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
180 |
Celenna |
festivaria |
(Fabricius,
1794) |
Kannikatti,
Upper Kothayar |
Feb 2013,
Mar 2014 |
|
181 |
Celenna |
festivaria
and form formosensis |
(Fabricius,
1794) |
Kuthiraivetti Upper
Kothayar |
Mar 2014, Feb 2013,
Mar 2014 |
|
182 |
Corymica |
deducta |
(Walker,
1866) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Jun 2018 |
|
183 |
Corymica |
sp. |
Walker,
1860 |
Kannikatti |
Feb 2013 |
|
184 |
Hypochrosis |
hyadaria- chlorozonaria complex-3 forms |
(Guenée,
[1858]) - (Walker, 1861) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Feb 2015, Feb 2012,
2015 |
|
185 |
Omiza |
miliaria
F-3 forms |
Swinhoe,
1890 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri, Maramalai |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Oct 2012, Feb 2015, Feb 2012,
Jan 2019 |
|
186 |
Omiza |
miliaria
M-2 forms |
Swinhoe,
1890 |
Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2014 |
|
|
|
Incertae sedis |
|
|
|
|
187 |
Eumelea |
ludovicata
M |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
188 |
Eumelea |
sp.2 |
Duncan
[&Westwood], 1841 |
Kuthiraivetti, Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012 Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Macariini |
Guenée,
1858 |
|
|
|
189 |
Acanthovalva |
sp. |
Krüger,
2001 |
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
190 |
Chiasmia |
eleonora |
(Cramer,
[1780]) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Feb 2015, |
|
191 |
Chiasmia |
inchoata |
Walker,
1861 |
Maramalai,
Kuthiraivetti |
Feb 2012,
Dec2012, Feb2015 |
|
192 |
Chiasmia |
myandaria |
(Walker,
[1863]) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
193 |
Chiasmia |
nora |
(Walker,
[1861]) |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar, Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
Mar 2014, Feb 2015 |
|
194 |
Chiasmia |
ornatataria |
(Leech,
1897) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
195 |
Chiasmia |
ozararia |
(Walker,
[1860]) |
Upper
Kothayar |
Oct 2018 |
|
196 |
Chiasmia |
perfusaria |
(Walker,
1866) |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
197 |
Chiasmia |
triangulata |
(Hampson,
1891) |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
198 |
Chiasmia |
cf. normata. |
(Walker,
1861) |
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
199 |
Chiasmia |
sp.11 |
Hübner,
[1823] |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
200 |
Chiasmia |
sp.12 |
Hübner,
[1823] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Dec 2012 |
|
201 |
Chiasmia |
sp.13 |
Hübner, [1823] |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
202 |
Chiasmia |
sp.14 |
Hübner,
[1823] |
Kuthiraivetti,
Sengeltheri |
Dec 2012,
Feb 2015 |
|
203 |
Isturgia |
disputaria group |
Krüger,
2001 |
Maramalai |
Feb 2012 |
|
204 |
Isturgia |
disputaria |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Talayanai |
Feb 2015 |
|
|
|
Plutodini |
Warren,
1894 |
|
|
|
205 |
Plutodes |
nilgirica |
Hampson,
1891 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar |
Dec 2012,
June 2013, Jan 2019 |
|
206 |
Plutodes |
pseudocyclaria |
Kirty &
Goyal, 2011 |
Kuthiraivetti,
Upper Kothayar |
Dec 2012,
Jan 2019 |
|
|
|
Scardamiini |
Warren,
1894 |
|
|
|
207 |
Aplochlora |
sp. 2 forms |
Warren,
1893 |
Sengeltheri,
Upper, Kothayar, Kuthiraivetti |
Oct 2012,
Mar 2014 |
|
208 |
Scardamia |
metallaria |
Guenée,
[1858] |
Kuthiraivetti |
Mar 2014 |
For figures & images - - click here
References
Anonymous
2021 - http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/asia-and-the-pacific/india/agasthyamala/ Last accessed 13 August 2021
Ban, X., N.
Jiang, R. Cheng, D. Xue & H. Han (2018). Tribal classification and
phylogeny of Geometrinae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) inferred from seven gene
regions. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 184(3): 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zly013
Barlow, H.S.
(1982). An
introduction to the moths of S.E. Asia. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala
Lumpur, 305 pp., 51 pls.
Beccaloni,
G., M. Scoble, I. Kitching, T. Simonsen, G. Robinson, B. Pitkin, A. Hine &
C. Lyal (Editors)
(2003). The Global Lepidoptera Names Index (LepIndex). Last accessed 13
August 2021. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/lepindex/
Beljaev, E.A.
(2007). Taxonomic
changes in the emerald moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Geometrinae) of East
Asia, with notes on the systematics and phylogeny of Hemitheini. Zootaxa
1584: 55–68.
Brechlin, R.
(1998). Sechs neue
indoaustralische Schwärmerarten (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae). Nachrichten des
Entomologischen Vereins Apollo, Frankfurt am Main, N.F. 19(1): 23–42.
Brechlin, R.
(2000). Zwei neue
Arten der Gattung Loepa Moore, 1859 (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Nachrichten
des Entomologischen Vereins Apollo, Frankfurt am Main, N.F. 21(3):
165–--170.
Butler, A.G.
(1881). Descriptions
of new Genera and Species of Heterocerous Lepidoptera from Japan. The
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1881: 1–25.
Butler, A.G.
(1886). Illustrations
of typical specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera in the collection of the British
Museum. Part VI, London, 89 pp., 19 pls.
Butler, A.G.
(1889). Illustrations
of typical specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera in the collection of the British
Museum. Part VII, London, 176 pp., 18 pls.
Choi, S.W.
& S.S. Kim (2013). Six new records of Idaea Treitschke (Lepidoptera: Geometridae,
Sterrhinae) from Korea. Entomological Research 43: 27–33.
Choi, S.W.
(2012). Taxonomic
review of the genus Asthena Hübner (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in Korea. Entomological
Research 42: 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5967.2012.00450.x
Cotes, E.C.
& C. Swinhoe (1887). A Catalogue of Moths of India. Pt. 1-Sphinges. The
Trustees of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 40 pp.
Cui, L., D. Xue & N. Jiang (2019).
A review of Organopoda Hampson, 1893 (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) from
China, with description of three new species. Zootaxa 4651(3): 434–444. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4651.3.2
Cui, L., D.
Xue, N. Jiang (2019). A review of Timandra Duponchel, 1829 from China, with
description of seven new species (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). ZooKeys
829: 43–74. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.829.29708
Dey, P., V.P.
Uniyal, A. Hausmann & D. Stüning (2021). Revision of the
genus Prometopidia Hampson, 1902, with description of the new
species P. joshimathensis sp. nov. from West-Himalaya and its
subspecies P. j. yazakii ssp. nov. from Nepal (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae, Ennominae). Zootaxa 4980(1): 28–44.
Elanchezhian,
M., C. Gunasekaran & A.A. Deepa (2014). A study on moth diversity in
three different habitats of Maruthamalai Hill, Western Ghats, South India. Global
Journal for Research Analysis 3(12): 136–138.
Fletcher,
D.S. (1953). A revision
of the genus Carecomotis (Lep. Geometridae), Annals and Magazine of
Natural History: Series XII(6): 100–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222935308654403
Forum
Herbulot (2003): The Forum
Herbulot world list of family group names in Geometridae,
<http://www.herbulot.de>, 11 pp., with updated version of 12.vi.2007 (A.
Hausmann ed.). Last accessed on 13 August 2021.
Govt. of
Tamilnadu, Forest department (2009). Monitoring Primates - A guide
for Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve,
https://www.forests.tn.gov.in/pages/view/kalakad_mundanthurai_tr. Last accessed
on 13 August 2021.
Goyal, T.
(2010). Taxonomic
studies on family Geometridae (Lepidoptera) from Western Ghats of India, PhD
thesis. Department of Zoology, Punjab Univeristy, 279 pp., 101 pls. Last accessed on 17 November 2020.
http://hdl.handle.net/10603/2894
Goyal, T.,
J.S. Kirti & A. Saxena (2018). Taxonomy of Genus Agathia Guenée (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae), with description of a new species from Western Ghats, India. Indian
Journal of Entomology 80(3): 951–959. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8172.2018.00144.X
Hampson, G.F.
(1891). Illustrations
of typical specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera in the collection of the British
Museum. Part VIII, Taylor & Francis, London, 144 pp., 18 pls.
Hampson, G.F.
(1893). Illustrations
of typical specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera in the collection of the British
Museum. Part IX, Taylor & Francis, London, 182 pp., 21 pls.
Hampson, G.F.
(1895). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Moths- Vol. 3. Taylor
and Francis, London, 588 pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1896). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Moths- Vol. 4. Taylor
and Francis, London, 632 pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1907). The Moths of
India. Supplementary paper to the Volumes in “The Fauna of British India”,
Series III, Part IX. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 18:
27–53.
Hampson, G.F.
(1912). The Moths
of India. Supplementary paper to the Volumes in “The Fauna of British India”.
Series IV, Part IV. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 21(4):
1222–1272.
Han, H. &
D. Xue (2011). Thalassodes
and related taxa of emerald moths in China (Geometridae, Geometrinae). Zootaxa
3019: 26–50.
Han, H., A.C.
Galsworthy & D. Xue (2009). A survey of the genus Geometra Linnaeus
(Lepidoptera, Geometridae, Geometrinae). Journal of Natural History 43
(13–14): 885–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222930802702472
Han, H., A.C.
Galsworthy & D. Xue (2012). The Comibaenini of China (Geometridae: Geometrinae),
with a review of the tribe. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
165: 723–772.
Holloway,
J.D. (1993[4]). The moths
of Borneo (Part 11); Family Geometridae: Subfamily 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); Subfamilies Sterrhinae, Larentiinae. Malayan Nature
Journal 51: 1–242.
Inoue, H.
(1953). Notes on some
Japanese Larentiinae and Geometrinae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Tinea
1: 1–18.
Inoue, H.
(1964). Some new
subspecies of the Geometridae from the Ryukyu Archipelago and Formosa
(Lepidoptera). Kontyû 32(2): 335–340.
Inoue, H.
(1993).
Redescription of Ourapteryx peermaadiata Thierry-Mieg from South India
(Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Ennominae). Lepidoptera Science 44(3):
117–119. https://doi.org/10.18984/lepid.44.3_117
Kendrick,
R.C. (2002). Moths
(Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Hong Kong. PhD Thesis. Department of Ecology and
Biodiversity, Hong Kong, University of Hong Kong. 623 pp., 9 pls.
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/31688. Last accessed on 4 December 2020.
Kendrick,
R.C. (2015). Polymorphism
and populations: Cleora injectaria (Walker, 1860) (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae) at Mai Po Nature Reserve, Hong Kong. Porcupine! 35: 8–10.
Kirti, J.S.
& T. Goyal (2011). A new species of Plutodes Guenée (Lepidoptera: Geometridae:
Ennominae) from Western Ghats of India. Journal of Applied Biosciences
37(1): 68–70.
Krüger, M.
(2001). A revision
of the tribe Macariini (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Ennominae) of Africa,
Madagascar and Arabia. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London
(Entomology Series) 70(1): 1–502.
Mathew, G.
& V.K. Rahamathulla (1995). Biodiversity in the Western Ghats – A study with
reference to moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) in the Silent Valley National
Park, India. Entomon 20(2): 25–33.
Moore, F.
(1867). On the
Lepidopterous Insects of Bengal, Part III. Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London 1867: 612–686.
Moore, F.
(1879). Descriptions
of New Indian Lepidopterous Insects from the collection of W. Atkinson. Heterocera,
The Asiatic Society of Bengal. Calcutta, 350 pp., 8 pls.
Moore, F.
(1884–7). The
Lepidoptera of Ceylon. Volume 3. L. Reeve & Co., London, 600 pp., 72
pls.
Murillo-Ramos,
L., G. Brehm, P. Sihvonen, A. Hausmann, S. Holm, H.R. Ghanavi, E. Õunap, A. Truuverk,
H. Staude, E. Friedrich, T. Tammaru & N. Wahlberg (2019). A comprehensive molecular
phylogeny of Geometridae (Lepidoptera) with a focus on enigmatic small
subfamilies. PeerJ 7: e7386. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7386
Õunap, E., J.
Viidalepp & A. Truuverk (2016). Phylogeny of the subfamily Larentiinae (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae): integrating molecular data and traditional classifications. Systematic
Entomology 21(4): 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12195
Plotkin, D.
& A.Y. Kawahara (2020). Review of recent taxonomic changes to the emerald moths (Lepidoptera:
Geometridae: Geometrinae). Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e52190. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e52190
Prout, L.B.
(1912). Lepidoptera,
Heterocera. Family Geometridae, Subfamily Hemitheinae. Genera Insecta
129: 274 pp.
Prout, L.B.
(1917). On new and
insufficiently known Indo-Australian Geometridae. Novitates zoologicae 24: 293–317.
Prout, L.B. (1920–1941). The Indo
Australian Geometridae. In: Seitz, A. (Ed.). The Macrolepidoptera of the
World. Vol 12, Stuttgart Verlag des Seitz’schen Werkes (Alfred Kernen), 356
pp. 50 pls.
Prout, L.B.
(1925). Geometrid
descriptions and notes. Novitates Zoologicae 32: 31–69.
Prout, L.B.
(1929). New species
and sub-species of Geometridae. Novitates Zoologicae 35: 63–77.
Prout, L.B.
(1929). On the
Geometrid Genus Catoria Moore. Novitates Zoologicae 35: 132–141.
Prout, L. B.
1933. The
Indoaustralian Geometridae, pp. 77–116. In: Seitz, A. (ed.) 1920-1934. The
Macrolepidoptera of the World. Volume 12: 1-292.
Prout, L.B.
(1934).
Geometridae: Subfamilia Sterrhinae. Lepidop-terorum Catalogus, part LXI:
1–180, W. Junk, Berlin.
Sato, R.
(1987). Taxonomic
notes on Menophra delineata (Walker) (Geometridae: Ennominae) and its
allies from Indo-Malayan region. Tinea 12 Supplement: 249–258.
Sato, R.
(2004). Taxonomic
notes on Racotis boarmiaria (Guenée) (Geometridae, Ennominae) and its
allies from the Indo-Malayan region, with description of four new species. Tinea
18(2): 130–139.
Sato, R.
(2014). Six new
species of the genus Ophthalmitis (Geometridae, Ennominae) from
Southeast Asia and South India, with taxonomic notes on the related species. Tinea
22(5): 318–330.
Sato, R.
(2016). Five new
species of the genera Hypomecis Hübner, Ophthalmitis Fletcher and
Phthonosema Warren (Geometridae; Ennominae) from the Indo-Malayan
region. Tinea 23(5): 241–248.
Schintlmeister,
A. (2003). Die Gattung Stauropus
Germar, 1812 (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae). Nachrichten des Entomologischen
Vereins Apollo, Frankfurt/Main, N.F. 24(3): 97–118.
Scoble, J.M.
& M. Krüger (2004). A review of the genera of Macariini with a revised classification of
the tribe (Geometridae: Ennominae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean
Society 134: 257–315.
Scoble, M.J.
(1999). Geometrid
Moths of the World - A Catalogue (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), Vol. 1
& 2, pp. 5–482 & 485–1016. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Scoble, M.J.
& A. Hausmann [updated 2007]. Online list of valid and available names of the
Geometridae of the World. Last accessed on 10 Jan 2021.
http://www.herbulot.de/globalspecieslist.htm
Sihvonen, P.
(2005). Phylogeny and
classification of the Scopulini moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae,
Sterrhinae). Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society 143: 473–530.
Sihvonen, P.,
L.S. Murillo-Ramos, G. Brehm, H. Staude & N. Wahlberg (2020). Molecular phylogeny of
Sterrhinae moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): towards a global classification. Systematic
Entomology 45: 606–634.
Sondhi, S.,
D. Nath, Y. Sondhi & K. Kunte (2020). A new species of Metallolophia Warren,
1895 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Geometrinae) and notes on M.
opalina (Warren, 1893) from eastern Himalaya, India. Zootaxa 4838(2):
289–297.
Sondhi, Y.,
S. Sondhi, S.R. Pathour & K. Kunte (2018). Moth diversity (Lepidoptera:
Heterocera) of Shendurney and Ponmudi in Agastyamalai Biosphere Reserve,
Kerala, India, with notes on new records. Tropical Lepidoptera Research
28(2): 66–89. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2027709
Sondhi, S.,
Y. Sondhi, P. Roy & K. Kunte (Chief Editors) (2021). Moths of India, v. 2.63. Indian
Foundation for Butterflies.
Stüning, D.
& V.K. Walia
(2009). The genus Astygisa Walker, 1864 in India, with description
of a new species from western Himalaya (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Ennominae). Tinea
21(1): 9–22.
Swinhoe, C.
(1890). New species
of moths from Southern India. Transactions of the Entomological Society of
London 1891(1): 133–154, pl.8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1891.tb01644.x
Thierry-Mieg,
P. (1903). Descriptions
de Lepidopteres Nocturnes. Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique
47: 382–385.
Viidalepp, J.
(2011). A
morphological review of tribes in Larentiinae (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Zootaxa
3136(1): 1–44. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3136.1.1
Walker, F.
(1860). List of
the specimens of Lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum,
London. Part XX: 1–276.
Walker, F.
(1860). List of
the specimens of Lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum,
London, Part XXI: 1–373.
Walker, F.
(1861). List of
the specimens of Lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum,
London. Part XXII–XXV: 1–826.
Walker, F. (1862). List of the specimens of
Lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, London. Part
XXV–XXVI: 1–538.
Warren, W.
(1894). New Genera
and Species of Geometridae. Novitates Zoologicae, 1: 366–534.
Warren, W.
(1896). New Species
of Drepanidae, Thyrididae, Uraniidae, Epiplemidae, and Geometridae in the Tring
Museum. Novitates Zoologicae 3: 335–420.
Warren, W.
(1897). New Genera
and Species of Geometridae. Novitates Zoologicae 4: 12–179 &
195–306.
Xue, D., L.
Cui & N. Jiang (2018). A review of Problepsis Lederer, 1853 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)
from China, with description of two new species. Zootaxa 4392(1):
101–127. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4392.1.5
Xue, D., X.
Wang & H. Han (2009). A revision of Episothalma Swinhoe, 1893, with descriptions of
two new species and one new genus (Lepidoptera, Geometridae, Geometrinae). Zootaxa
2033: 12–25.
Yakovlev, R.V. (2009). New taxa of African and Asian
Cossidae (Lepidoptera). Euroasian Entomological Journal 8(3): 353–361.