Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2023 | 15(6): 23359–23372
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8072.15.6.23359-23372
#8072 | Received 27
June 2022 | Final received 16 May 2023 | Finally accepted 30 May 2023
Moth diversity of Guindy,
Chennai, India and DNA barcoding of selected erebid
moths
Sreeramulu Bhuvaragavan 1, Mani Meenakumari
2 , Ramanathan Nivetha 3 &
Sundaram Janarthanan 4
1-4 Department of Zoology, University
of Madras, Guindy Campus, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600025, India.
1 bhuvaragavan281@gmail.com, 2
tameenakumari@gmail.com, 3 nivetharamanathan94@gmail.com,
4 janas_09@yahoo.co.in
(corresponding author)
Editor: Sachin Arjun Gurule, MVP’s S.S.S.M. Arts, Science and Commerce College, Saikheda, Nashik, India. Date of publication: 26 June
2023 (online & print)
Citation: Bhuvaragavan, S., M. Meenakumari, R. Nivetha & S. Janarthanan (2023). Moth diversity of Guindy, Chennai, India and DNA barcoding of
selected erebid moths. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(6): 23359–23372. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8072.15.6.23359-23372
Copyright: © Bhuvaragavan et al. 2023. 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: University Grants Commission; Department of Science and Technology; University of Madras.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. S. Bhuvaragavan is a guest lecturer of Biology at
University of Madras. He has been involved in focused
research on invertebrate biology dealing with protein structure and function.
His specializations include immunology and physiology. This study was in his
interest to understand the distribution of potential insect pest models in
Chennai. Ms. R. Nivetha is a senior research scholar from
Department of Zoology, University of Madras, Chennai. She pursues research on
biopolymers with biomedical applications with special inclination towards
glycoproteins. Molecular taxonomy of insects is another area she is interested. Her research interests are protein purification,
experimental glycobiology and possess laudable experience
in bioinformatics. Ms. M. Meenakumari is a senior researcher from Department of Zoology, University of
Madras, Chennai. She works on natural polymers with possible
practice in insect pest control. Molecular taxonomy of biology is also her
best-loved subject. Her research interests are cloning novel genes for large
scale purification of potential natural polymers. Dr. S. Janarthanan is a professor of Zoology at University of
Madras, Chennai. His research involves purification and characterization of
insect lectins with distinct carbohydrate binding specificities for use as
biosensors, bio-pesticidal, anti-microbial and anti-cancer molecules. Furthermore, he is working on molecular biomarkers for classification
of insects.
Author contributions: S. Bhuvaragavan: Conceptualization, sample
collection, investigation, interpretation, preparation of manuscript draft and
funding acquisition. M. Meenakumari: Investigation and data curation.
R. Nivetha: Interpretation of results, data
curation and preparation of manuscript draft. S. Janarthanan: Project administration,
supervision, funding acquisition, review and edit of manuscript.
Acknowledgements: The first author gratefully
acknowledges the UGC for the NET-SRF (CSIR-UGC) Fellowship (Certificate Sr. No.
2121530460, Ref. No: 20/12/2015 (ii) EU-V) (2016–2021). The third author
acknowledges the support of Dr. Kalaignar
M. Karunanidhi Endowment Scholarship (2018-19),
University of Madras (No. F.11-Endow/Ph.D
Scholarship/2018-19/712 dt 21 May 2019). The authors
acknowledge the infrastructure support provided in the department under the
DST-FIST programme. We thank Dr. P.R. Shashank
(Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi) and Dr. Gagan Preet Kour Bali (Punjabi University, Patiala and Eternal
University, Baru Sahib) for sharing their valuable
insights in identification of moth species. The authors thank Mr. Mari
Krishnamurthy for his valuable assistance in sample collection. We acknowledge
the usage of COI gene sequences of 38 species retrieved from NCBI. Finally, the
authors thank the anonymous reviewers and the subject editor for revising the
species identification.
Abstract: In this study, diversity of moths
has been documented from Chennai, the capital city of Tamil Nadu. During the
study, over 100 specimens were collected from which 59 moth species were
identified from the commercial hub of Chennai, Guindy. The species identified
belonged to 52 genera, 11 families, and 25 subfamilies. Erebidae
was a front runner, followed by Crambidae, Geometridae, Sphingidae, and Noctuidae. Furthermore, Eupterotidae,
Uraniidae, Nolidae, Lasiocampidae, Pterophoridae, and
Thyrididae were the least recorded families. Among 26
erebids, 14 species were subjected for identification
through mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 gene to resolve the
ambiguity. The sequences resulted were deposited in GenBank and BOLD system
where they received accession numbers and process IDs. Further, phylogenetic
analysis categorized Metanastria hyrtaca Cramer, 1782 in a separate clade.
Keywords: Barcode, biodiversity,
conservation, Erebidae, moths.
INTRODUCTION
With about 1.2 million species,
arthropods continue to be a dominant group in the earth’s biodiversity. Their
significance in sustaining the health of an ecosystem by furnishing livelihood
and nutrition to human communities is far-reaching (Chakravarthy & Sridhara 2016). Nevertheless, insects are contemplated to
be a potential group for understanding the effects of habitat attributes and
environmental gradients on faunal diversity (Watt et al. 1997; Humphrey et al.
1999; Dey et al. 2017). Lepidoptera, which
encompasses butterflies and moths, constitutes one of the three most
species-rich insect orders and the largest evolutionary radiation of
herbivorous animals comprising around 175,000 described species (Cover & Bogan 2015). However, another 125,000 to 150,000 species
are thought to await description (Goldstein 2017). It exhibits close
association with vegetation, their depletion and ensuing regeneration and is
accordingly regarded as an indicator taxon (Summerville et al. 2004; Dey et al. 2015). Moths, being the most prominent
terrestrial invertebrates, represent the majority of the order Lepidoptera
consisting 158,570 described species (Zhang 2013). An estimation of about 15000
species of Lepidoptera belonging to 84 families are reported from India (Chandra
et al. 2019). They form a critical facet of the terrestrial ecosystem by
serving as nocturnal pollinators, herbivores of crops and prey for numerous
species (Wagner et al. 2021). Many angiospermous plants that largely depend on
animal-assisted pollination are critically associated with moth species
(Wahlberg et al. 2013). Erebidae is the most
prominent moth family consisting of 24,569 species belonging to 18 subfamilies
(Nieukerken et al. 2011). Most of them are
phytophagous as larvae and few are nectar suckers as adults (Terra &
Ferreira 2020). The economic importance of family Erebidae
can be attributed to the fact that it includes a significant number of major
and minor pest species, and therefore their distributional knowledge is highly
significant for the economy of any country (Bin-Cheng 1994). Furthermore,
exploring the changes in the pattern associated with moth distribution and
abundance in different local habitats constitutes a significant element of
global biodiversity monitoring and conservation (Dennis et al. 2019).
Classification of organisms is a
prerequisite for understanding their distribution and diversity in any habitat.
Classification of closely related lepidopteran species based on wing patterns
and other morphological attributes posses’ difficulties and imprecision those
are amenable to change as a function of environment and prevalence of several
biotypes. Over the last few years, DNA barcodes are known to answer elemental
ecological questions that govern community assemblage, processes of
macroevolution, species conservation and incorporation of molecular tools along
with morphology, which can add value to the existing information on moth
diversity (Dey et al. 2019). A cytochrome oxidase
subunit 1 (COI) gene identification system is contemplated to be more reliable,
economical and a quick fix to the problems involved in species identification
(Hebert et al. 2003). Since Hebert et al. (2003), order Lepidoptera has been
regarded as a model group for DNA-barcoding studies (Goldstein 2017). Several
studies have been carried out to investigate the moth diversity in peninsular
India, yet Tamil Nadu has only fewer studies especially minuscule information
in Chennai metropolitan, as follows. Reports of 154 species of noctuid moths
from the Tamil Nadu part of Western Ghats, 67 species of erebid
moths and 105 moth species from Maruthamalai hills
are notable among them (Sivasankaran & Ignacimuthu 2014). Close to 135 species have been recorded
in Valmiki Nagar, Chennai (Nagarajan et al. 2021). Besides being an
ecologically significant group, they are less explored, finding their way into
the present biodiversity conservation scenario (Dey
et al. 2015). Despite rich lepidopteran diversity existing in India, attempts
that are made to generate DNA barcode data of moths in India are very scarce (Dey et al. 2019; Kumar et al. 2019). Urban areas are
considered significant drivers of biodiversity change due to expressively
transformed landscape changes and rapid anthropogenic actions (Zari 2018).
Declines in the diversity and abundance of moth population are reported over
the past few years due to explicit factors like loss of habitat, fragmentation,
pollution, urbanization and other related anthropogenic practices (Dennis et
al. 2019; Hallmann et al. 2020). There is a research
gap in knowledge of how the aforementioned explicit factors impact the
diversity and abundance of population of moths in an urban environment.
Consequently, an attempt was made to generate a preliminary checklist of moth
fauna from Guindy, a commercial hub in Chennai and further species
authentication of selected erebid moths to resolve
ambiguity in identification using mitochondrial COI gene.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The study was conducted in
Guindy, one of the largest Southern neighbourhoods of
Chennai, Tamil Nadu (Figure 1). It is located between 13.010236° N latitude
and 80.215652° E longitude. Guindy National Park is situated inside
the city covering an area of 2.70 km2 lies between 12.99°
N, 80.23° E and 13.00° N, 80.21° E consisting of single habitat type, dry
evergreen woodland.
Sample collection and
identification
Moth species were collected using
traps consisting of light source (Mercury vapour
light) during night from places in and around Guindy, Chennai. The collected
specimens were identified by their morphological characters using manuals of
Bell & Scott (1937) and Hampson (1892, 1895, 1896). They were killed using
chloroform, pinned using entomological pins and stretched on spreading board.
Later, they were oven-dried at 52°C and were preserved in the insect box. The
stretched specimens were photographed using Nikon camera after drying.
Genomic DNA extraction, PCR
amplification (COI gene) and sequencing
Species authentication was
carried out using the mitochondrial COI gene to resolve ambiguity in
identifying 14 selected Erebid individuals. Total
genomic DNA from individual species was extracted from the legs using the
phenol-chloroform method. DNA extracted were then resuspended in Tris- etheylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) buffer (TE buffer)
and stored at -20°C until further use. The lepidopteran specific COI primers of
Hebert et al. (2003) [Forward primer - F: 5’
-ATTCAACCAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3’; Reverse primer - R: 5’-
TAAACTTCTGGATGTCCAAAAAATCA-3’] were used to amplify regions of COI
from 14 species of moths belonging to the Erebidae
family that exhibited uncertainty in their identification using taxonomic keys.
PCR amplification was carried out in a total volume of 10 µl consisting of Ampliqon-Taq DNA Polymerase 2x Master Mix RED, lepidopteran
specific COI primers of Hebert et al. (2003), template DNA and sterile water (MyGene Series, Peltier Gradient Thermal Cycler). The
reaction mixture was initially denatured for 5 min at 94°C followed by 35
cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 1 min, annealing of 56°C for 1 min,
extension of 72°C for 1 min and a final extension cycle of 72°C for 7 min. It
was then stored at 4°C. A control reaction was prepared without template DNA. A
1.2% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide was used to examine the
amplified gene product. It was then gel purified and sequenced using the
Sanger dideoxynucleotide sequencing protocol (AgriGenome Labs, Kochi). Sequences were then analysed with the National Centre for Biotechnology
Information (NCBI) Blast Server and submitted in NCBI GenBank and Barcode of
Life Data (BOLD) system to obtain corresponding accession numbers and process
IDs.
Phylogenetic analysis
A phylogenetic tree was
constructed using MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across
computing platforms to study the evolutionary relationship among various
species identified (Kumar et al. 2018). The Neighbour-Joining
method was used to infer the evolutionary history, and the Kimura 2-parameter
method was used to compute evolutionary distances (Kimura 1980). Bootstrap
analysis was also performed using MEGA X (10000 replicates). The available
(database) mitochondrial COI gene sequences of morphologically-identified
species (38) (among the 45 species) were retrieved from NCBI for constructing
phylogenetic tree along with COI gene-based identified species (14) in this
study. Multiple sequence alignment was carried out before the construction of
the phylogenetic tree using CLUSTALW multiple alignment available as accessory
application in BioEdit software. All the sequences
were then subjected to evolutionary analysis by phylogenetic tree construction
using neighbour-joining method mentioned above.
RESULTS
Distribution profile of moth
fauna from Guindy, Chennai
59 species were identified, and a
checklist was constructed along with their scientific name, common name, family
and subfamily (Table 1, Image 1–7). The 59 species identified belonged to 52
genera and 11 families such as Erebidae, Crambidae, Geometridae, Sphingidae, Noctuidae, Eupterotidae, Lasiocampidae, Nolidae, Pterophoridae, Thyrididae and Uraniidae (Figure
2). As a result of the comparative distribution, family Erebidae
was higher in numbers with a total of 26 species (21 genera and 25 species),
followed by the families such as Crambidae with 10
species (9 genera and 10 species), Geometridae with 8
species
(7 genera and 6 species), Sphingidae with 5 species
(5 genera and 5 species) and Noctuidae with 4 species
(4 genera and 3 species); while families viz. Eupterotidae,
Lasiocampidae, Nolidae, Pterophoridae, Thyriridae and Uraniidae accounted for single species each. The Family Erebidae was observed to be a species-rich group in Guindy,
Chennai.
Mitochondrial COI gene
amplification
The lepidopteran specific COI
primers of Hebert et al. (2003) did amplify COI gene from all the 14 erebid species. The product was then gel purified,
sequenced, and analysed. To resolve ambiguity in
identification of Erebid moths, the DNA barcoding was
adopted and the sequence results identified 14 different species of Erebidae which includes Achaea janata
(Linnaeus, 1758), Achaea mercatoria (Fabricius, 1775), Amata passalis
(Fabricius, 1781), Asota
caricae (Fabricius,
1775), Creatonotos gangis
(Linnaeus, 1763), Erebus caprimulgus (Fabricius, 1781), Erebus macrops
(Linnaeus, 1768), Eudocima materna
(Linnaeus, 1767), Eudocima phalonia
(Linnaeus, 1763), Hypocala deflorata
(Fabricius, 1794), Olepa
schleini (Witt et al. 2005), Perina nuda (Fabricius, 1787), Sphingomorpha
chlorea (Cramer, 1777) and Utetheisa
pulchelloides (Hampson, 1907). The representative
amplified COI gene is presented in Figure 3. The nucleotide sequences of
mitochondrial COI gene from all the 14 species were deposited in GenBank and
BOLD system where they received individual accession numbers and process IDs,
respectively (Table 2).
Phylogenetic analysis
MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary
Genetics Analysis was used to construct a phylogenetic tree to infer the
evolutionary relationship among various identified species of moths. The
percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together
in the bootstrap test (10000 replicates) was shown next to the branches. The Neighbourhood joining method was used instead of maximum
parsimony or maximum likelihood approaches because of its accuracy, rapidity
and optimum assumptions (Hong et al. 2021). The results of the phylogenetic
analysis are shown in Figure 4, with Apis
mellifera being the outgroup. Metanastria
hyrtaca (Cramer, 1782) formed a separate clade,
and all other species were clustered in another clade.
DISCUSSION
Species identification is a
prerequisite in estimating biodiversity in an area and perceiving knowledge on
species ecology. Thus, explicit identification is obligatory to gain insights
into any species’ diversity and distribution profile in any place under study.
Morphological identification and taxonomic keys are important methods used
extensively (Sviridov & Leuschner 1986). Notably,
among the various moths collected in this study, moths belonging to Erebidae family dominated others. Presumably, their
polyphagous nature could be the impetus for their wide distribution, making
them fit to survive in any resource condition (Zahiri et al. 2012). A similar
domination pattern of erebid moths was also observed
in the Northern part of the Western Ghats (Shubhalaxmi
et al. 2011; Gurule & Nikam
2013). These are then accompanied by species belonging to the family Crambidae, the second most prominent family, which is
attributed to the phytophagous, detritivorous,
coprophagous, parasitic habits of their larvae and ability to feed on roots,
stems or grasses (Nayak & Ghosh 2020). This is followed by the distribution
of Geometridae, the next abundant moth family.
Comparatively, the least documented families were Eupterotidae,
Uraniidae, Nolidae, Lasiocampidae, Pterophoridae and Thyrididae. Twenty-six species belonging to 18 genera of
family Pterophoridae were identified and examined
from the Shiwalik hills of North-West India (Pooni et al. 2019). In an attempt to document the moth
fauna of Goa, Collinsa decoratalis
(Warren, 1986), a thyridid moth, was reported as a
new record from the Western Ghats. In addition to this, the uraniid moth Pseudhyria rubra
(Hampson, 1891) was also reported for the first time from Goa (Gurule & Brookes 2021). Estimated diversity and
distribution of moths in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Shendurney
and Ponmudi in Agastyamalai
Biosphere Reserve, Tawang district (Arunachal
Pradesh) recorded that the most abundant family was Geometridae
(Chandra & Sambath 2013; Dey
et al. 2015; Sondhi et al. 2018). Geometrid moths
were found in abundance at tea plantations of North-East India (Sinu et al. 2013). However, Erebidae
was the most profusely distributed family in Vagamon
hills (Western Ghats), Dehradun and Devalsari, North
East Jharkhand, Midnapore town (West Bengal) and Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi (Sondhi & Sondhi
2016; Singh et al. 2017; Nayak & Ghosh 2020; Nayak & Sasmal 2020).
Family Erebidae
is copiously found in a diverse habitat, which includes predominantly
polyphagous species and pests. The discovery of the species Asota
paliura (Swinhoe 1893)
belonging to the family Erebidae from India
was also reported (Rajan & Shamsudeen
2020). A tentative list of Erebidae from the Tamil
Nadu part of Western Ghats is documented as well (Sivasankaran
& Ignacimuthu 2014). In addition, based on the
survey made in Tamil Nadu at different localities, the genus Othreis (Synonym Eudocima)
(Linnaeus, 1763) was one among the two genera of predominant fruit piercers,
which is by far the most harmful and a severe pest on citrus, guava,
pomegranate, grapes, fig, sapota, mango, papaya, and tomato in India (Ramkumar
et al. 2010). An endemic Indian moth, Gurna
indica (Moore, 1879) of the Erebidae
family, was rediscovered after 125 years (Kalawate et
al. 2019). An attempt has been made to document the species of Erebid moths from Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India (Farooqui
et al. 2020). In addition, the discovery of Asota
paliura (Swinhoe, 1893)
(Lepidoptera: Erebidae) represents a new record from
India (Rajan & Shamsudeen
2020). Similarly, Pericyma cruegeri (Butler, 1886) was also reported for the first
time in India (Singh & Ranjan 2016). New additions of eight species to the
known Indian fauna of the family Erebidae was also
accounted (Kirti et al. 2017). Recently, moth diversity and preliminary
checklist of moths from different regions of Rajasthan including Sariska Tiger Reserve were reported (Dar et al. 2021a,b;
Jamal 2021). Additionally, there is also first report of Oleander Hawkmoth, Daphnis
nerii (Linnaeus, 1758) from India (Dar et
al. 2022).
DNA barcoding is a proven tool
used for expeditious and unambiguous identification of species, thus
circumventing the problems associated with morphology-based identification of
species (Hebert & Gregory 2005). PCR amplification of short fragments
within the barcoding region of the COI gene has been comprehensively used to
identify different species. Sustainable identification relies mainly upon the
construction of a system that utilizes DNA sequences as taxon barcodes. The
mitochondrial COI gene was established to serve a crucial role in the global
bio-identification system for animals (Hebert et al. 2003). DNA barcoding is
considered a definitive method for identifying insects (Jalali
et al. 2015). COI DNA barcodes were used to distinguish among species of three
lepidopteran families in north-western Costa Rica (Hajibabaei
et al. 2006). A DNA Barcoding reference library of about of 113 species of
geometrid moths from Western Himalaya was constructed which can effectively
provide information on geographical distribution and basis for their
conservation (Dey et al. 2019). Another study in Namdapha
National Park, East Himalaya, produced a DNA barcode sequence of 44 Geometridae moths (Kumar et al. 2018). Further, a study
concluded that a two-step barcoding analysis pipeline could swiftly
characterize insects’ biodiversity and explicate species boundaries for
taxonomic complexes (Jin et al. 2018). Thus, the DNA
barcoding tool can be used to discriminate constructively among various species
in the lepidopteran family (Hajibabaei et al. 2006).
To resolve ambiguity in some erebids, we used
mitochondrial COI gene for identification of species. This assisted in the
precise identification of the 14 erebid species.
Phylogenetic studies can provide clues on the evolutionary relatedness among
various groups of organisms.
The collection site of this study
also covers the area in the University of Madras. Many urban universities like
Banaras Hindu University have developed many strategies to monitor, manage and
conserve biodiversity (Nayak & Ghosh 2020). In addition, universities have
an eccentric potentiality to embrace a biophilic design inside the campus which
aids in reconfiguring urban residents to the biosphere and serve as an
excellent source for biodiversity-based research in urban (Liu et al. 2021).
Further, the study can be extended to cover many urban areas to comprehend the
effect of urbanization on the distribution profile of moths.
The distribution profile of a
species depends significantly on the biogeographical region in which they occur
(Gaston 1994). Artificial light pollution due to the imprudent use of
artificial light was reported to cause temporal and spatial disorientation,
biorhythms desynchronization, and desensitization of visual systems, affecting
the moth physiology and behaviour (Nayak & Ghosh
2020). In addition, LED lights have been found to lower the risk of urban areas
becoming ecological traps (White et al. 2016). Spatial habitat heterogeneity is
essential to sustain the gamma diversity of macro-moth species (de Miranda et
al. 2019). Urban green areas were indicated in a finding to support a wide
array of moths (Paul 2021). A maiden comprehensive annotated checklist of moths
of Delhi with 234 species that were not previously reported were added (Komal et al. 2021). Consequently, the number of described
species may or may not constitute the definite number of species occurring in
an area. Nevertheless, this documentation can provide particulars on their
distribution and their conservation status.
Table 1. Checklist of moth fauna from Guindy,
a commercial hub in Chennai.
|
|
Family |
Subfamily |
Species (Common name) |
Author & year |
|
1 |
Crambidae |
Pyraustinae |
Maruca vitrata (Bean pod borer) |
Fabricius, 1787 |
|
2 |
Crambidae |
Pyraustinae |
Omphisa anastomosalis (Sweetpotato
vineborer) |
Guenée, 1854 |
|
3 |
Crambidae |
Pyraustinae |
Spoladea recurvalis (Beet Webworm Moth) |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
4 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Botyodes asialis |
Guenée, 1854 |
|
5 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Rice leaf roller) |
Guenée, 1854 |
|
6 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Cnaphalocrocis poeyalis (Lesser rice- leafroller) |
Boisduval, 1833 |
|
7 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Diaphania indica (Cucumber Moth) |
Saunders, 1851 |
|
8 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Haritalodes derogata (Cotton leaf roller) |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
9 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Isocentris filalis |
Guenée, 1854 |
|
10 |
Crambidae |
Spilomelinae |
Palpita vitrealis (Jasmine Moth) |
Rossi, 1794 |
|
11 |
Erebidae |
Aganainae |
Asota caricae (Tropical Tiger Moth) |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
12 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Amata passalis
(Sandalwood
defoliator) |
Fabricius, 1781 |
|
13 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Creatonotos gangis (Baphomet Moth) |
Linnaeus, 1763 |
|
14 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Olepa schleini |
Witt et al. 2005 |
|
15 |
Erebidae |
Arctiinae |
Utetheisa pulchelloides (Heliotrope Moth) |
Hampson, 1907 |
|
16 |
Erebidae |
Calpinae |
Eudocima materna (Dot-underwing Moth) |
Linnaeus, 1767 |
|
17 |
Erebidae |
Calpinae |
Eudocima phalonia (Common fruit-piercing Moth) |
Linnaeus, 1763 |
|
18 |
Erebidae |
Catocalinae |
Achaea janata
(Castor
semi-looper) |
Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
19 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Achaea mercatoria |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
20 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Dysgonia stuposa |
Fabricius, 1794 |
|
21 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Erebus caprimulgus |
Fabricius, 1781 |
|
22 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Erebus macrops
(Common Owl
Moth) |
Linnaeus, 1768 |
|
23 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Lacera noctilio |
Fabricius, 1794 |
|
24 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Ophiusa tirhaca (Green Drab) |
Cramer, 1777 |
|
25 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Pericyma cruegeri (Poinciana looper) |
Butler, 1886 |
|
26 |
Erebidae |
Erebinae |
Sphingomorpha chlorea (Sundowner Moth) |
Cramer, 1777 |
|
27 |
Erebidae |
Hypeninae |
Hypena obacerralis |
Walker, 1859 |
|
28 |
Erebidae |
Hypocalinae |
Hypocala deflorata |
Fabricius, 1794 |
|
29 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Artaxa digramma |
Boisduval, 1844 |
|
30 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Euproctis scintillans (Lymantriid Moth) |
Walker, 1856 |
|
31 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Euproctis similis (Yellow-tail Moth) |
Fuessly, 1775 |
|
32 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Laelia exclamationis |
Kollar, 1848 |
|
33 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Laelia litura
(Tussock
Moth) |
Walker, 1855 |
|
34 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Olene mendosa
(Brown
Tussock Moth) |
Hübner, 1823 |
|
35 |
Erebidae |
Lymantriinae |
Perina nuda (Clearwing Tussock Moth) |
Fabricius, 1787 |
|
36 |
Erebidae |
Scoliopteryginae |
Anomis spp. |
Hübner, 1821 |
|
37 |
Eupterotidae |
Eupterotinae |
Eupterote bifasciata (Giant Lappet Moth) |
Kishida, 1994 |
|
38 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Iridopsis larvaria (Bent-lined Gray) |
Guenée, 1858 |
|
39 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Chiasmia eleonora |
Cramer, 1780 |
|
40 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Chiasmia spp. |
Cramer, 1780 |
|
41 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Macaria multilineata (Many-lined Angle) |
Packard, 1873 |
|
42 |
Geometridae |
Ennominae |
Cleora spp. |
Curtis, 1825 |
|
43 |
Geometridae |
Geometrinae |
Thalassodes veraria |
Guenée, 1858 |
|
44 |
Geometridae |
Geometrinae |
Nemoria bistriaria (Red-fringed Emerald) |
Hübner, 1818 |
|
45 |
Geometridae |
Sterrhinae |
Idaea sylvestraria (Dotted Border Wave) |
Hübner, 1799 |
|
46 |
Lasiocampidae |
Pinarinae |
Metanastria hyrtaca (Hairy caterpillar) |
Cramer, 1782 |
|
47 |
Noctuidae |
Hadeninae |
Chasmina candida |
Walker, 1865 |
|
48 |
Noctuidae |
Heliothinae |
Helicoverpa armigera (Cotton Bollworm) |
Hübner, 1808 |
|
49 |
Noctuidae |
Noctuinae |
Spodoptera litura (Tobacco Cutworm) |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
50 |
Noctuidae |
Noctuinae |
Mythimna spp. |
Ferdinand Ochsenheimer,
1816 |
|
51 |
Nolidae |
Nolinae |
Nola analis |
Wileman & West, 1928 |
|
52 |
Pterophoridae |
Pterophorinae |
Geina periscelidactyla (Grape Plume Moth) |
Fitch, 1855 |
|
53 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Hippotion boerhaviae (Hippotion Sphinx
Moth) |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
54 |
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Nephele hespera (Crepuscular Hawkmoth) |
Fabricius, 1775 |
|
55 |
Sphingidae |
Sphinginae |
Acherontia lachesis (Greater death's head Hawkmoth) |
Fabricius, 1798 |
|
56 |
Sphingidae |
Sphinginae |
Agrius convolvuli (Convolvulus
Hawkmoth) |
Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
57 |
Sphingidae |
Sphinginae |
Psilogramma increta (Plain grey
Hawkmoth) |
Walker, 1864 |
|
58 |
Thyrididae |
Striglinae |
Striglina scitaria (Daincha leaf webber) |
Walker, 1862 |
|
59 |
Uraniidae |
Microniinae |
Micronia aculeata (Asian Spotted Swallowtail Moth) |
Guenée, 1857 |
Table 2. GenBank accession numbers and BOLD
process IDs for erebid species authenticated using
mitochondrial COI gene.
|
|
Species |
GenBank accession number |
BOLD Process ID |
|
1 |
Achaea Janata |
MW421768 |
DBEM007-21 |
|
2 |
Achaea mercatoria |
MW425700 |
DBEM008-21 |
|
3 |
Amata passalis |
MW425697 |
DBEM002-21 |
|
4 |
Asota caricae |
MW425696 |
DBEM001-21 |
|
5 |
Creatonotos gangis |
MW425695 |
DBEM014-21 |
|
6 |
Erebus caprimulgus |
MW435024 |
DBEM009-21 |
|
7 |
Erebus macrops |
MW425705 |
DBEM010-21 |
|
8 |
Eudocima materna |
MW425702 |
DBEM005-21 |
|
9 |
Eudocima phalonia |
MW425701 |
DBEM006-21 |
|
10 |
Hypocala deflorata |
MW407951 |
DBEM012-21 |
|
11 |
Olepa schleini |
MW425704 |
DBEM003-21 |
|
12 |
Perina nuda |
MW425699 |
DBEM013-21 |
|
13 |
Sphingomorpha chlorea |
MW425703 |
DBEM011-21 |
|
14 |
Utetheisa pulchelloides |
MW425698 |
DBEM004-21 |
For
figures & images - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Bell, T.R.D. & F.B. Scott (1937). The Fauna of British India,
including Ceylon and Burma, Moths–Vol. 5, Sphingidae.
Taylor and Francis, London, 537 pp.
Bin-Cheng, Z.
(1994). Index of
economically important Lepidoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Chakravarthy,
A.K. & S. Sridhara (2016). Economic and Ecological
Significance of Arthropods in Diversified Ecosystems: Sustaining Regulatory
Mechanisms. Springer, Singapore, 22 pp.
Chandra, K.
& S. Sambath (2013). Moth diversity of Tawang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 5(1): 3565–3570. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2718.966
Chandra, K.,
V. Kumar, N. Singh, A. Raha & A.K. Sanyal (2019). Assemblages of Lepidoptera in Indian himalaya through long term monitoring plots. Kolkata:
Zoological Survey of India 1–457.
Cover, M.R.
& M.T. Bogan (2015). Minor insect orders, pp.
1059–1072. In: Thorp, J.H. & D.C. Rogers (eds.). Ecology and
General Biology, Thorp and Covich’s Freshwater
Invertebrates. Academic Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Dar, A.A., K.
Jamal & M.S. Shah (2022). First report of Oleander Hawkmoth, Daphnis nerii
(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) feeding on Alstonia scholaris
(Apocynaceae) from India. Transactions of the
American Entomological Society 148(1): 59–63. https://doi.org/10.3157/061.148.0105
Dar, A.A., K.
Jamal, A. Alhazmi, M. El-Sharnouby,
M. Salah & S. Sayed (2021a). Moth diversity, species composition, and
distributional pattern in Aravalli Hill Range of Rajasthan, India. Saudi
Journal of Biological Sciences 28(9): 4884–4890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.06.018
Dar, A.A., K.
Jamal & M. Salah (2021b). Preliminary checklist of moth fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera)
of Rajasthan, India. Journal of Entomological Research 45(3):
549–554.
de Miranda,
M.D., H.M. Pereira, M.F. Corley & T. Merckx (2019). Beta diversity patterns reveal
positive effects of farmland abandonment on moth communities. Scientific
Reports 9(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38200-3
Dennis, E.B.,
T.M. Brereton, B.J. Morgan, R. Fox, C.R. Shortall, T.
Prescott & S. Foster (2019). Trends and indicators for quantifying moth abundance
and occupancy in Scotland. Journal of Insect Conservation 23(2):
369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00135-z
Dey, P., A. Hausmann & V.P. Uniyal (2019). Towards creating a DNA barcode reference library of
geometrid moths from Western Himalaya, India. Spixiana 42:
47–59.
Dey, P., V.P. Uniyal
& A.K. Sanyal (2015). Moth assemblages (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) as a potential conservation tool for
biodiversity monitoring–study in Western Himalayan protected areas. Indian
Forester 141(9): 985–992.
Dey, P., V.P. Uniyal
& K. Chandra (2017). A prefatory estimation of diversity and distribution of moths in Nanda
Devi Biosphere Reserve, Western Himalaya, India. National Academy
Science Letters 40(3): 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40009-016-0534-1
Farooqui,
S.A., H. Parwez & R. Joshi (2020). A preliminary study and new
distributional records of family Erebidae (Leach,
1815) (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea) from Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh, India. Notulae Scientia
Biologicae 12(4): 794–806. https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb12410830
Gaston, K.J.
(1994). Measuring
geographic range sizes. Ecography 17:
198–205. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2097247
Goldstein,
P.Z. (2017). Diversity
and significance of Lepidoptera: a phylogenetic perspective, pp. 463–495. In: Foottit, R.G. & P.H. Adler (eds.). Insect
Biodiversity: Science and Society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom.
Gurule, S.A. & R.D. Brookes (2021). A preliminary study of moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Goa University Campus, Goa. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India 121(1): 101–116. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v121/i1/2021/152996
Gurule, S.A. & S.M. Nikam (2013). The moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera)
of northern Maharashtra: a preliminary checklist. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 5(12): 4693–4713. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2555.4693-713
Hajibabaei, M., D.H. Janzen, J.M. Burns, W.
Hallwachs & P.D. Hebert (2006).
DNA barcodes distinguish species of tropical Lepidoptera. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 103(4): 968–971. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0510466103
Hallmann, C.A., T. Zeegers,
R. van Klink, R. Vermeulen, P. van Wielink,
H. Spijkers & E. Jongejans
(2020). Declining
abundance of beetles, moths and caddisflies in the Netherlands. Insect
Conservation and Diversity 13(2): 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12377
Hampson, G.F.
(1892). Moths. In: Fauna
of Britsh India including Ceylon and Burma, Vol.
1, Taylor and Francis, London, 527 pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1895). Moths. In: The
Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Vol. 3, Taylor and
Francis, London.
Hampson, G.F.
(1896). Moths. In: The
Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Vol. 4, Taylor and
Francis, London, xxviii+449 pp.
Hebert, P.D.
& T.K. Gregory (2005). The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54(5):
852–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500354886
Hebert, P.D.,
A. Cywinska, S.L. Ball & J.R. DeWaard
(2003). Biological
identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series B 270(1512): 313–321. https://doi.org
/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
Hong, Y., M.
Guo & J. Wang (2021). ENJ algorithm can construct triple phylogenetic trees. Molecular
Therapy-Nucleic Acids 23: 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2020.11.004
Humphrey,
J.W., C. Hawes, A.J. Peace, R. Ferris-Kaan & M.R.
Jukes (1999).
Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in
plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 113(1):
11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00413-7
Jalali, S.K., R. Ojha & T.
Venkatesan (2015). DNA barcoding for identification of agriculturally important insects,
pp. 13–23. In: Chakravarthy, A. (eds.). New Horizons in Insect Science:
Towards Sustainable Pest Management. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2089-3_2
Jamal, K.
(2021). Moth (Insecta: Lepidoptera) fauna of Sariska
Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Notulae
Scientia Biologicae 13(2): 10906–10906. https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb13210906
Jin, Q., X.M. Hu, H.L. Han, F. Chen,
W.J. Cai, Q.Q. Ruan & A.B. Zhang (2018). A two–step DNA barcoding
approach for delimiting moth species: moths of Dongling
Mountain (Beijing, China) as a case study. Scientific Reports 8(1):
1–12.
https://doi.org /10.1038/s41598-018-32123-9
Kalawate, A.S., N. Upadhyay & B.
Mukhopadhyay (2019). Rediscovery of an endemic Indian moth Gurna
indica (Moore, 1879) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae) after 125
years. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(6): 13808–13810. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4649.11.6.13808-13810
Kimura, M.
(1980). A simple
method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through
comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular
Evolution 16: 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731581
Kirti, J.S.,
N. Singh & H. Singh (2017). Eight new records of family Erebidae
(Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea) from India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 9(7): 10480–10486. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3690.9.7.10480-10486
Komal, J., P.R. Shashank, S. Sondhi, S. Madan, Y. Sondhi, N.M.
Meshram & S.S. Anooj
(2021). Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Delhi, India: An illustrated
checklist based on museum specimens and surveys. Biodiversity Data
Journal 9: e73997. https://doi.org /10.3897/BDJ.9.e73997
Kumar, S., G.
Stecher, M. Li, C. Knyaz
& K. Tamura (2018). MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing
platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35(6): 1547.
https://doi.org /10.1093/molbev/msy096
Kumar, V., S.
Kundu, R. Chakraborty, A. Sanyal, A. Raha, O. Sanyal & K. Chandra
(2019). DNA
barcoding of Geometridae moths (Insecta:
Lepidoptera): a preliminary effort from Namdapha
National Park, Eastern Himalaya. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 4(1):
309–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2018.1544037
Liu, J., Y. Zhao,
X. Si, G. Feng, F. Slik & J. Zhang (2021). University campuses as valuable
resources for urban biodiversity research and conservation. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 64: 127255.
Nagarajan,
V.M., R. Srinivasan & M. Narayanaswamy (2021). Diversity of moths from the
urban set–up of Valmiki Nagar, Chennai, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
13(14): 20174–20189. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7515.13.14.20174-20189
Nayak, A.
& S. Ghosh (2020). Moth diversity (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India: a preliminary checklist. Notulae Scientia Biologicae
12(3): 592–607. https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb12310749
Nayak, A.
& S. Sasmal (2020). Monsoon moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of Midnapore town, West Bengal, India: a
preliminary checklist with a note on their diversity. Environmental and
Experimental Biology 18: 271–282. https://doi.org/10.22364/eeb.18.26
Nieukerken, E.J., L. Kaila, I.J. Kitching,
N.P. Kristensen, D.C. Lees, J. Minet &
A. Zwick (2011). Order
Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In: Zhang, Z.Q. (eds.). Animal Biodiversity: An
Outline of Higher-Level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness. Zootaxa 3148(1): 212–221.
Paul, M.
(2021). Impact of
urbanization on moth (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Heterocera) diversity across different urban landscapes of
Delhi, India. Acta Ecologica Sinica 41(3): 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2021.01.008
Pooni, H.S., P.C. Pathania
& A. Katewa (2019). Plume moths of family Pterophoridae (Microlepidoptera) from Shiwaliks
of North-West India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 119(3):
256–262. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v119/i3/2019/143334
Rajan, R. & R.S.M. Shamsudeen (2020). First record of the species Asota paliura (Swinhoe, 1893) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae:
Aganinae) from India. Asian Journal of
Conservation Biology 9(2): 359–361.
Ramkumar, J.,
M. Swamiappan, S. Raguraman
& A. Sadasakthi (2010). Species diversity and seasonal
abundance of fruit piercing moth complex in Tamil Nadu. Journal
of Biopesticides 3(Special Issue): 11–15.
Shubhalaxmi, V., R.C. Kendrick, A. Vaidya,
N. Kalagi & A. Bhagwat (2011). Inventory of moth fauna
(Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of the northern western ghats, Maharashtra, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 108(3): 183–205.
Singh, N.
& R. Ranjan (2016). Additions to the moth fauna of Dalma Wildlife
Sanctuary, Jharkhand (India). Records of the Zoological Survey of India 116(4):
323–336. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi.v116i4.142109
Singh, N., J.
Ahmad & R. Joshi (2017). Diversity of moths (Lepidoptera) with new faunistic records from North
East Jharkhand, India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 117(4):
326–340. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v117/i4/2017/121289
Sinu, P.A., P. Mandal, D. Banerjee,
S. Mallick, T. Talukdar & S.K. Pathak (2013). Moth pests collected in light
traps of tea plantations in North East India: species composition, seasonality
and effect of habitat type. Current Science 104(5): 646–651.
Sivasankaran, K. & S. Ignacimuthu
(2014). A report of Erebidae (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea)
from the Tamil Nadu part of the western ghats,
India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 111(3):
193–209. https://doi.org/10.17087/jbnhs/2014/v111i3/82380
Sondhi, Y. & S. Sondhi
(2016). A partial
checklist of moths (Lepidoptera) of Dehradun, Mussoorie
and Devalsari in Garhwal,
Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(5):
8756–8776. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2814.8.5.8756-8776
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): 66–69. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2027709
Summerville,
K.S., L.M. Ritter & T.O. Crist (2004). Forest moth taxa as indicators
of lepidopteran richness and habitat disturbance: a preliminary
assessment. Biological Conservation 116(1): 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00168-X
Sviridov, A.V. & D. Leuschner (1986). Optimization of taxonomic keys
by means of probabilistic modelling. Biometrical Journal 28(5):
609–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.4710280511
Terra, W.R.
& C. Ferreira (2020). Evolutionary trends of digestion and absorption in the major insect
orders. Arthropod Structure & Development 56: 100931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2020.100931
Wagner, D.L.,
R. Fox, D.M. Salcido & L.A. Dyer (2021). A window to the world of global
insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 118(2): e2002549117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002549117
Wahlberg, N.,
C.W. Wheat & C. Peña (2013). Timing and patterns in the taxonomic diversification
of Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). PLoS
ONE 8(11): e80875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080875
Watt, A.D.,
D.A. Barbour & C. McBeath (1997). The invertebrate fauna
associated with birch in spruce forests. Scottish Natural Heritage Research,
Survey and Monitoring Report No. 82, Edinburgh.
White, P.J.,
K. Glover, J. Stewart & A. Rice (2016). The technical and performance
characteristics of a low-cost, simply constructed, black light moth trap. Journal
of Insect Science 16(1): 25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iew011
Zahiri, R.,
J.D. Holloway, I.J. Kitching, J.D. Lafontaine, M. Mutanen
& N. Wahlberg (2012). Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae
(Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea). Systematic
Entomology 37(1): 102–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2011.00607.x
Zari, M.P.
(2018). Regenerative
Urban Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry. Routledge, United Kingdom, 260 pp. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114330
Zhang, Z.Q. (2013). Phylum Arthropoda. In: Zhang,
Z.Q. (Ed.) Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher Level Classification
and Survey of Taxonomic Richness. Zootaxa
3703: 17–26. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3703.1.6