Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 December 2025 | 17(12): 28111–28124
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9984.17.12.28111-28124
#9984 | Received 06 June 2025 | Final received 09 September 2025 |
Finally accepted 11 December 2025
Checklist of moths (Lepidoptera:
Heterocera) of Lumami campus, Nagaland University, India
Keneisano Yhoshii 1 & Lobeno Mozhui 2
1,2 Department of Zoology, Nagaland
University, Lumami, Nagaland 798627, India.
1 keneisano_rs2024@nagalanduniversity.ac.in,
2 lobenomozhui@nagalanduniversity.ac.in (corresponding author)
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of publication: 26 December 2025 (online & print)
Citation:
Yhoshii, K. & L. Mozhui (2025). Checklist of moths (Lepidoptera:
Heterocera) of Lumami campus, Nagaland University, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 17(12): 28111–28124. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9984.17.12.28111-28124
Copyright: © Yhoshii & Mozhui 2025. 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: The present work is not funded by any agencies.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Keneisano Yhoshii is a research scholar in the
Department of Zoology, Nagaland University, Lumami. Her research focuses on
moth diversity and their distribution patterns. Lobeno Mozhui is an assistant professor in the
Department of Zoology, Nagaland University, Lumami. She specializes
in insect taxonomy, entomology, ecology, and nutritional biochemistry.
Author contributions: KY: field survey, sample collection, preservation, photography, data
compilation, data analysis, writing. LM: conceptualization, research design, data analysis, taxonomic assessment, manuscript
drafting, reviewing, editing, supervision.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank
the DBT NER Project No. BT/PR53947/NER/95/2200/2024 for providing laboratory
facilities to facilitate the completion of the work.
Abstract: The present study was carried
out to document the moth fauna of Lumami campus between February 2024 to April
2024 using the light trapping method with a 100 W LED bulb. A total of 106
species belonging to 83 genera under 12 families and seven superfamilies were
recorded. The family Erebidae dominated with 46 species (43%), followed by
Geometridae with 32 species (30%), Notodontidae with five species (4%),
Crambidae and Saturniidae with four species each (4%), Drepanidae,
Lasiocampidae, and Sphingidae with three species (3% each), Euteliidae and
Nolidae with two species each (2%), and Zygaenidae and Noctuidae with one
species each (1% each). Of the 106 moth species, 36 species are first reports
from Nagaland; of which Geometridae dominates with 18 genera (e.g., Amblychia
sp., Hypomecis seperata), followed by Erebidae with 13 genera (e.g., Asota
heliconia, Dierna strigata, Ommatophora sp.), Euteliidae with
two genera (e.g., Targalla apcifascia, Eutelia discistriga), and
Nolidae with two genera (e.g., Westermannia superba, Xenochroa
sp.). Species such as Acosmeryx naga are potential pollinators, and Chadisra
bipartita is an indicator of forest health, as their decline suggests
detrimental environmental changes such as increased pesticide use or habitat
degradation. This study thereby offers baseline data for future studies on moth
fauna as well as for the creation of sustainable forest development and
conservation strategies.
Keywords: Biodiversity, conservation, diversity,
environmental change, first record, habitat degradation, light trap, moth
fauna, northeastern India, Zunheboto.
INTRODUCTION
With almost 180,000 species
described, Lepidoptera is the second largest and most diverse order of insects
(Khan et al. 2023). As biologically, economically, and aesthetically highly
significant groups of insects, moths (Heterocera) are phytophagous,
cosmopolitan, potential pollinators and important bioindicators as well (Devoto
et al. 2011; LeCroy et al. 2013; Dey et al. 2015). Although moths account for
roughly 88% of the Lepidopteran diversity, they have received less scientific
attention in comparison to the butterflies due to their cryptic colouration and
mostly nocturnal activity, which makes them less visible. Moths can survive in
an incredibly diverse range of habitats, from frozen Arctic tundra (Kumar et
al. 2019) to high-altitude mountain slopes to humid rainforests excluding
Antarctica. Perhaps, it is this adaptability to change morphologically,
physiologically, and behaviourally that has allowed Lepidoptera to endure on
the earth for the past millions of years (Kaur et al. 2024).
Moths are a notable group of
insects in the terrestrial ecosystem as they serve as important pollinators.
Recent studies have revealed that nocturnal moths visit more plant species than
day-active bees do, given the super-pollinator status of bees, stressing their
relevance to pollen transport and having wide-ranging tastes in flowers (Wagner
2025). Moths serve as important indicator taxa due to their sensitivity to
changes in their environment, including changes in climate, habitat,
anthropogenic activities, vegetational changes, and their response to
successional processes (Thomas 2005; Hilt & Fiedler 2006; Dey et al. 2015).
Their diversity, abundance, functional significance, high capability for
reproduction, short generation time, sensitivity to disturbance, and simplicity
of sampling make them significant indicator species that can be used to track
environmental change and assess its effectiveness (Andersen et al. 2004). Due
to their significant conservation importance and use as model organisms in
scientific study (Regier et al. 2009), this group of insects has currently
gained prominence.
Numerous studies have documented
a global decline in moth ranges and abundance across a variety of ecosystems
(Wagner 2012; Maes et al. 2024). Over the past decades, many habitats and
continents have been strongly affected by the changing climate (Walther et al.
2002). Over the same period, many landscapes have also changed because of the
intensification of agriculture, deforestation or urbanization (Warren et al.
2001; Thomas et al. 2004). Urbanization significantly affects community
assemblages by altering landscapes, which include habitat destruction,
fragmentation, heightened pollution levels, and altered hydrology (Grimm et al.
2008). The main factors causing the long-term loss of moth diversity are
climate change, habitat deterioration, and human activities such as
industrialized and agricultural landscapes (Fox 2013). Moths are negatively
affected by climate change and are therefore well suited for uncovering
patterns in the effects of climate change on ecosystems as this group of
insects demonstrates how organismal (genetics, physiology, behaviour,
morphology), phenological (host synchrony, voltinism), population-level
(geographic ranges), and community-level (trophic interactions, e.g.,
parasitoid–herbivore) processes interact and respond to change. Changes in the
temperature not only reduce their abundance but also create conflict between
morphological characteristics, including body and wing size, and ecological
factors like dispersal (Hill et al. 2021).
The northeastern region of India
is one of the ten biogeographic regions of the nation and has significant
importance for determining the biodiversity space of India. Northeastern India
is one of the major and important hotspots among the 35 biodiversity hotspots
of the world, which is known for “endemism” (Kumar et al. 2016). Due to the
unique climatic conditions and varied topography, northeastern India occupies a
distinct and diversified ecosystem, and it has become the natural abode for
Lepidopterans. The most recent research lists 3,265 moth species from 1,519
genera spread across 60 families of 24 superfamilies under five clades from the
northeastern biogeographic zone of India. With 716 species within the
superfamily Noctuoidea, Erebidae is the most prevalent family (Joshi et al.
2021). In Nagaland, about 855 species belonging to 24 families have also been
reported by Joshi et al. (2021). No research has been conducted on moth
diversity at Lumami Campus, Nagaland University; therefore, the current study
seeks to investigate the various moth species present on the campus.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The present study was carried out
in Lumami (Figure 1), a village in Zunheboto District located at 26.202o N
& 94.471o E and 942 m. It is situated 8 km away from the
sub-district headquarters in Akuluto and 40 km away from the district headquarters
in Zunheboto. Owing to the high altitude, the district enjoys a monsoon climate
almost throughout the year with cold winters and hot summers. The average
rainfall is about 200 cm (https://snwc.nagaland.gov.in). The area is dominated
by Abroma augusta (L.) L.f., Bauhinia variegata (L.) Benth, Callicarpa
arborea Roxb, Duabanga grandiflora (Roxb. ex DC.) Walpers, Ficus
racemosa L., Lagerstroemia speciosa (L.) Pers., Oak trees (Quercus
griffithii Hook.f. & Thomson ex Miq. and Quercus serrata (Murray)),
Prunus cerasoides Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don, Schima wallichii (DC.)
Korth. and Terminalia myriocarpa van Heurck & Müll. Arg (Mozhui et
al. 2020).
Methodology
The study was conducted in 2024
between February and April. The specimens were collected by light trapping
using a 100 W LED bulb and handpicking from areas near light sources. The sites
were sampled for one to two hours every day (1800–2000 h); the majority of the
samples were collected at night; some were also collected during the day.
Following that, ethyl acetate was used in killing jars to kill moths, then they
were fastened to the board using entomological pins. Using a Canon EOS700D DSLR
camera, the observed moths were photographed, recorded, and brought to the
laboratory for further taxonomic studies. The moths were identified with the
help of relevant literature (Hampson 1892–1896; Haruta 1992–2000; Sondhi &
Sondhi 2016; Chettri et al. 2021; Joshi et al. 2021). Experts were consulted,
and references from https://www.mothsofindia.org and https://www.inaturalist.org
were used to identify species. The taxonomic classification and arrangement by
Nieukerken et al. (2011) was followed.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In the present study, a total of
106 species of moths belonging to 83 genera under 12 families and seven
superfamilies were documented (Table 1 & Images 1–4). The family Erebidae
represented the maximum number with 46 species (43%), followed by Geometridae
with 32 species (30%), Notodontidae with five species (4%), Crambidae, and
Saturniidae with four species each (4% each), Drepanidae, Lasiocampidae, and
Sphingidae with three species each (3% each), Euteliidae and Nolidae with two
species each (2% each), and Zyganidae and Noctuidae with one species each (1%
each) (Figure 2). The percentage contribution of the families was calculated by
counting the total number of moth species representing each family. Among the
106 documented species, 36 moth species represent first records for the state,
thus contributing to the moth diversity of Nagaland as per Joshi et al. (2021).
List of some first reported species includes Macrocilix maia, Amblychia sp.,
Cleora fraterna, Fascellina plagiata, Hypomecis transcissa,
Krananda semihyalina, Lassaba albidaria, Maxates thetydaria,
Ophthalmitis xanthypochlora, and Asota heliconia.
Due to their domestication for
the production of silk, moths such as Bombyx mori, Antheraea pernyi,
Antheraea assamensis, Hyalophora cecropia, and Samia cynthia,
among others, have a significant economic impact on the ecology (Zethner et al.
2015). Many animals also depend on moths (such as Attacus atlas, Biston
betularia, and Plodia interpunctella) as a source of vital
nutrients. Certain moth species can seriously harm plants during their larval
stage (Nneji et al. 2020). For example, the Potato Tuber Moth Phthorimaea
operculella is a significant pest of potatoes. In addition to being
one of the most taxonomically tractable and speciose families of insects,
Lepidoptera play crucial functions in forests as pollinators, detritivores,
selective herbivores, and prey for migratory passerines (Schowalter et al.
1986). Moths are crucial to the ecosystem as potential pollinators since
certain insects are essential to the pollination of food sources and the
overall health of an ecosystem. With little knowledge of what occurs at night,
the majority of pollination study focuses on insects that fly during the day. A
significant component of the natural ecosystem and an essential component of
many ecological communities are pollinating insects. Moths are becoming more
significant and helping to pollinate more types of plant pollen as wild day
pollinating insects like bees and butterflies are becoming less common.
According to recent research, moths pollinate more quickly at night and are
more effective pollinators than bees and other day-flying pollinators (Anderson
et al. 2023).
Lepidoptera demonstrate potential
as surrogates for several insect species, including Hymenoptera (Kerr et al.
2000), and serve as indicators of forest health. Consequently, a vital group for
tackling concerns associated with forest biodiversity and spatial dimensions is
the Lepidoptera. Kitching et al. (2000) indicate that specific moth families
and subfamilies, including Arctiinae, Catocalinae, Heliothinae, Noctuinae,
Herminiidae, and Phycitinae, exhibit positive responses to disturbances, while
others, such as Ennominae, Geometrinae, Epipaschiinae, Lymantriidae, and
Anthelidae, demonstrate negative responses. A multitude of nocturnal moth
species have specific distributional boundaries associated with their host
plants and climatic constraints, rendering them effective indicators of
changing climate conditions in both local and regional contexts. Moths serve as
effective biological indicators of climate change impacts due to their variable
maturation rates in response to annual temperature fluctuations (Highland et
al. 2013). This often indicates that the ecosystem is a conducive habitat and
teeming with diverse fauna. Pūrerehua, especially moths, are essential for
nitrogen and carbon cycling due to their capacity to decompose coarse organic
matter and rejuvenate soils (Merien 2021). The decline in moth populations,
given their pivotal role in food webs and their significance as a food source
for mammals, songbirds, and other insects, would consequently influence the
entire ecosystem and affect all other animals (Peralta et al. 2014).
Consequently, if comprehensive
research is conducted in this domain and other locations are included, a
greater diversity of species may be documented compared to the recent study. In
Nagaland, research is limited, and advancement has been sluggish due to a
dearth of literature. Despite the study area indicating a substantial
population of moths, further exploration is necessary for comprehensive
research on moths. Nagaland possesses significant biodiversity; nonetheless,
many regions remain unexamined for moth research. This study, not exhaustive,
seeks to elucidate the moth variety of Lumami, Nagaland, and its adjacent
regions. The current findings, despite temporal limitations, establish a basis
for future long-term, comprehensive, and targeted moth surveys. Additionally,
the results of this study can inform judgments about the conservation of
natural resource management, particularly concerning moth biodiversity.
Consequently, a comprehensive survey accompanied by long-term monitoring
programs will facilitate the assessment of species status and may potentially
result in additional discoveries within these insect groups.
CONCLUSION
This study found a rich and diverse
assemblage of moths, reflecting variations in species richness, variety, and
familial representation. Enhanced comprehension of biodiversity and ecosystem
health, along with comprehensive research and monitoring of moth habitat
alterations due to pollution, climate change, and anthropogenic activities,
might yield more insights into ecosystem health. Moreover, examining the
effects of climate change can be achieved by understanding species
distribution, population dynamics, the impact of urbanization, and their direct
effects on the dependent fauna and flora. This work enhances the comprehension
of moth ecology in Lumami by broadening the catalogue of known moth species and
elucidating their ecological functions within local ecosystems.
Table 1. Moth species observed at
Lumami Campus during the study.
|
|
Taxa |
Author, year |
Distribution in northeastern
India |
Distribution in Indian States
and elsewhere |
|
Superfamily: Zygaenoidea Family: Zygaenidae Subfamily: Chalcosiinae Tribe: Chalcosiini |
||||
|
1 |
Eterusia aedea |
(Linnaeus, 1763) |
AS, ML, NL |
SR, NP, TW, JPN, CN, MH |
|
Superfamily: Pyraloidea Family: Crambidae Subfamily: Pyralinae Tribe: Pyralini |
||||
|
2 |
Heortia vitessoides |
(Moore, [1885]) |
ML, TR |
CN, SR, TH, MY, FJ, AU |
|
Subfamily: Spilomelinae Tribe: Margaroniini |
||||
|
3 |
Terastia egialealis |
(Walker, 1859) |
NL |
MH, AP, AR |
|
Subfamily: Pyraustinae Tribe: Portentomorphini |
||||
|
4 |
Hyalobathra sp. |
|
NE |
AU, SR, TW, JPN, MM, UK |
|
Subfamily: Crambinae |
||||
|
5 |
Eoophyla sp. |
|
NE |
MH, AP, AR |
|
Superfamily: Drepanoidea Family: Drepanidae Subfamily: Drepaninae Tribe: Drepanini |
||||
|
6 |
Canucha specularis |
(Moore, 1879) |
AS |
SR, CN, SK |
|
7 |
*Macrocilix maia |
(Leech, 1888) |
ML, AS |
JPN, TW, KR, CN, BOR, MY |
|
8 |
Tridrepana lunulata |
(Butler, 1887) |
NE |
MM, CN, SR, TH, MY, ID, NP, BT,
AU, WB, UK |
|
Superfamily: Lasiocampoidea Family: Lasiocampidae Subfamily: Lasiocampinae Tribe: Odonestini |
||||
|
9 |
Odonestis bheroba |
Moore, 1859 |
AS |
SR, NP, TH, CN, MM, TW |
|
Tribe: Pinarini |
||||
|
10 |
Lebeda nobilis nobilis |
Walker, 1855 |
MN, ML, NL |
CN, NP, MM, TW, NL, ML, JK, UK,
MH, WB, SK |
|
Tribe: Trabalini |
||||
|
11 |
Trabala vishnou |
(Lefebvre, 1827) |
AS, MN |
SR, MM, MY, TH, ID, CN, TW, MP,
BR |
|
Superfamily: Bombycoidea Family: Saturniidae Subfamily: Saturniinae Tribe: Saturniini |
||||
|
12 |
Actias maenas |
Doubleday, 1847 |
NE |
KL, KA |
|
13 |
Antheraea assamensis |
Helfer, 1837 |
AS, MN, ML, NL, MZ |
NP, ID, MM, SR |
|
14 |
Loepa cf. katinka |
Westwood, 1848 |
AS, ML, MN, NL |
SEA |
|
15 |
Rinaca cidosa |
(Moore, 1865) |
NE |
NP, BT, MM, TH, HP, JK, UK |
|
Family: Sphingidae Subfamily: Macroglossinae Tribe:
Macroglossini |
||||
|
16 |
Acosmeryx naga |
(Moore, [1858]) |
ML |
SR, NP, BT, MM, TH, MY |
|
Subfamily: Smerinthinae Tribe: Ambulycini |
||||
|
17 |
*Ambulyx moorei |
(Moore, [1858]) |
AS |
SR, NP, BT, MM, TH, MY, KA |
|
Subfamily: Sphinginae Tribe: Sphingini |
||||
|
18 |
Meganoton analis |
(Felder, 1874) |
ML |
SEA, JK, UK, AR |
|
Superfamily: Geometroidea Family: Geometridae Subfamily: Ennominae |
||||
|
19 |
*Metapercnia ductaria |
(Walker, 1862) |
MN, MZ |
TH, WB |
|
Subfamily: Ennominae Tribe: Abraxini |
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
Abraxas sp. |
|
NE |
SEA |
|
Subfamily: Ennominae Tribe: Boarmiini |
||||
|
21 |
Alcis sp. 1 |
|
NE |
SEA, WB |
|
22 |
Alcis sp. 2 |
|
NE |
SEA, WB |
|
23 |
*Amblychia sp. |
|
AS |
SR, NP, MY, ID, KR, JPN, AU, UK |
|
24 |
Amraica recursaria |
(Walker, 1860) |
ML |
WB, TN |
|
25 |
Coremecis nigrovittata |
(Moore, 1868) |
ML, NL |
MY, NP, AR, SK |
|
26 |
*Cleora fraterna |
(Moore, 1888) |
NE |
CN, TW, NP, BT, HP, BR, MH, WB,
UP, TN |
|
27 |
Cleora sp. 1 |
|
NE |
CN, TW, NP, BT, HP, BR, MH, WB,
UP, TN |
|
28 |
Cleora sp. 2 |
|
NE |
CN, TW, NP, BT, HP, BR, MH, WB,
UP, TN |
|
29 |
*Gasterocome pannosaria |
(Moore, 1868) |
ML |
NP, BT, CN, TW |
|
30 |
*Harutaea flavizona |
Sato, 2000 |
NE |
NP, TW,TH, MY, ID, AR |
|
31 |
*Hypomecis separata |
(Walker, 1860) |
ML |
SR, BOR, TN, WB, MP, UK, KL |
|
32 |
*Hypomecis transcissa |
(Walker, 1860) |
AS, MR |
SR, BOR, TN, WB, MP, UK, KL |
|
33 |
*Krananda semihyalina |
(Moore, [1868]) |
ML, MR |
JPN, MY, TW, CN, KR, WB |
|
34 |
*Lassaba albidaria |
(Walker, 1866) |
ML |
JK, WB, UK |
|
35 |
*Ophthalmitis xanthypochlora
|
(Wehrli, 1924) |
NE |
CN, TH |
|
Tribe: Hypochrosini |
||||
|
36 |
*Fascellina plagiata |
Walker, 1866 |
NE |
SEA |
|
37 |
*Hypochrosis sp. |
|
NE |
SEA |
|
Tribe: Plutodini |
||||
|
38 |
Plutodes costatus |
Butler, 1886 |
ML |
CN, NP, TH, MM, MY, ID, WB |
|
39 |
*Plutodes flavescens |
Butler, 1880 |
AS |
SEA, WB |
|
Tribe: Ourapterygini |
||||
|
40 |
*Ourapteryx sp. |
|
NE |
NE- INDIA |
|
Subfamily: Sterrhinae Tribe: Scopulini |
||||
|
41 |
*Scopula vicina |
(Thierry Mieg, 1907) |
NE |
CN, MY, SR, MH, HP |
|
42 |
Scopula sp. |
|
NE |
SR, SEA, AU |
|
Subfamily: Geometrinae Tribe: Nemoriini |
||||
|
43 |
*Eucyclodes textilis |
(Butler, 1880) |
NL |
SR, MM, MH |
|
Tribe: Hemitheini |
||||
|
44 |
Hemithea sp. 1 |
|
NE |
NP |
|
45 |
Hemithea sp. 2 |
|
NE |
NP |
|
46 |
*Maxates thetydaria |
(Guenée, 1857) |
AS, MR |
BD |
|
47 |
Pelagodes sp. 1 |
|
NE |
SR, FJ, MY, AU, WB, KR |
|
48 |
Pelagodes sp. 2 |
|
NE |
SR, FJ, MY, AU, WB, KR |
|
49 |
Pelagodes sp. 3 |
|
NE |
SR, FJ, MY, AU, WB, KR |
|
Tribe: Pseudoterpnini |
||||
|
50 |
Pingasa rubicunda |
(Warren, 1894) |
ML, NL |
AR, PH |
|
Superfamily:
Noctuoidea Family:
Notodontidae Subfamily: Phalerinae
|
||||
|
51 |
Phalera grotei |
Moore, 1860 |
AS, NL |
SR, CN, KR, MM, BT, ID, MH, KR,
KL, TN |
|
Subfamily: Notodontinae Tribe: Netrini |
||||
|
52 |
Netria sp. 1 |
|
NE |
CN, SR, NP, MM, TH, UK, MH |
|
53 |
Netria sp. 2 |
|
NE |
CN, SR, NP, MM, TH, UK, MH |
|
Tribe: Notodontini |
||||
|
54 |
Formofentonia orbifer |
(Hampson, [1892]) |
NE |
TW |
|
55 |
Chadisra bipartita |
Matsumura, 1925 |
NE |
MM, NP, PK, SR, MH |
|
Family: Erebidae Subfamily: Arctiinae Tribe: Arctiini |
||||
|
56 |
Aglaomorpha plagiata |
(Walker, 1855) |
AS, ML |
CN, NP, MM, KK, HP, UK |
|
57 |
Areas galactina |
(van der Hoeven, 1840) |
ML. NL |
CN, TW, NP, BT, UK, HP, WB |
|
58 |
Creatonotos transiens |
(Walker, 1855) |
AS, MN, ML, NL, TR |
SEA |
|
59 |
*Nyctemera arctata |
Walker, 1856 |
NE |
CN, NP, BT, MM, TW, ID, WB, CG |
|
60 |
Nyctemera adversata |
(Schaller, 1788) |
AS, NL, MN, TR, MR |
CN, JPN, MM, TH, ID, NP |
|
61 |
Spilarctia obliqua |
Walker, 1855 |
AS, NL, MN, TR, MR |
PK, BT, MM, BD |
|
62 |
Spilarctia sp. |
|
NE |
PK, BT, MM, BD |
|
Tribe: Syntomini |
||||
|
63 |
Amata divisa |
(Walker, 1854) |
AS, ML, NL |
CN, NP, MM |
|
64 |
Eressa confinis |
(Walker, 1854) |
AS, ML, NL |
BT, SR, MM, TW, CN, UK, TN, AP,
KA, MP |
|
65 |
Syntomoides imaon |
(Cramer, [1779]) |
MN, ML, NL |
SR, TH, MM, NP, CN, BD, TN, KL |
|
Tribe: Lithosinii |
||||
|
66 |
Ammatho cuneonotatus |
Walker, 1855 |
AS |
CN, NP, TH, MY, TN, KL, KR |
|
67 |
*Barsine linga |
(Moore, 1859) |
AS, ML, MR |
WB, SK, AR |
|
68 |
*Brunia sp. |
|
NE |
SR, CN |
|
69 |
*Brunia sarawaca |
(Butler, 1877) |
NE |
MY, BOR |
|
70 |
Cyana peregrina |
(Walker, 1854) |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL, TR |
AF, SEA, AU, HP, UK, WB |
|
71 |
*Macrobrochis gigas |
(Walker, 1854) |
AS |
CN, BT, NP, ID, TH, TW, MH, KR,
MP, WB, KL |
|
72 |
*Miltochrista undulosa |
(Walker, 1854) |
NE |
NP, MM, CN |
|
Subfamily:
Aganainae |
||||
|
73 |
Asota caricae |
(Fabricius, 1775) |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL, TR |
SR, MY |
|
74 |
*Asota heliconia |
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
NE |
SR, MM, AU |
|
Subfamily: Calpinae Tribe: Phyllodini |
||||
|
75 |
*Phyllodes eyndhovii |
Vollenhoven, 1858 |
AS |
SR, TW, TH |
|
Tribe: Calpini |
||||
|
76 |
*Dierna strigata |
(Moore, 1867) |
ML |
MM, SR, HP, UK, AR |
|
Subfamily: Erebinae |
||||
|
77 |
*Fodina oriolus |
Guenée, 1852 |
AS, ML |
SR, BT |
|
Tribe: Erebini |
||||
|
78 |
Erebus caprimulgus |
(Fabricius, 1781) |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL,
TR |
SR, MM, MY, BOR,
KL, MH, KR, TN |
|
79 |
Erebus macrops |
(Linnaeus, 1768) |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL, TR |
SR, MM, KL |
|
Tribe: Ommatophorini |
||||
|
80 |
*Ommatophora sp. |
|
NE |
TW, SEA |
|
Tribe: Hulodini |
||||
|
81 |
Ericeia eriophora |
(Guenée, 1852) |
NE |
SR, TH, MY, TN |
|
82 |
Speiredonia mutabilis |
(Fabricius, 1794) |
NE |
SR, MM, AU |
|
Tribe: Ophiusini |
||||
|
83 |
Dysgonia sp. |
|
NE |
CN, ID, JPN, CN, KR, TN, UK |
|
84 |
*Ophiusa trapezium |
(Guenee, 1852) |
AS |
SR, NP |
|
Tribe: Sypnini |
||||
|
85 |
Daddala sp. |
|
NE |
TH, TW, JPN |
|
Subfamily: Hypocalinae Tribe: Hypocalini |
||||
|
86 |
Hypocala sp. 1 |
|
NE |
SR, AF, AU, TN, UK, AP, KR, MP |
|
87 |
Hypocala sp. 2 |
|
NE |
SR, AF, AU, TN, UK, AP, KR, MP |
|
Subfamily: Lymantriinae
Tribe: Lymantriini |
||||
|
88 |
Lymantria cf. bivittata |
Hübner, [1819] |
MN, ML, NL |
TW, TH |
|
89 |
*Lymantria lepcha |
(Moore, 1879) |
ML |
JPN, SR, MM |
|
90 |
Lymantria mathura |
Moore, [1866] |
MN, ML, NL |
CN, NP, JPN, KR, MP, MH, AR |
|
91 |
Lymantria sp. |
|
NE |
CN, NP, JPN, KR, MP, MH, AR |
|
Tribe: Leucomini |
||||
|
92 |
Perina nuda |
(Fabricius, 1787) |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL, TR |
CN, TH |
|
93 |
Arna bipunctapex |
(Hampson, 1892) |
ML, NL |
TW, TH |
|
94 |
Euproctis fraterna |
Moore, 1883 |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL, TR |
SR |
|
95 |
Euproctis sp. |
|
NE |
SR |
|
96 |
Somena scintillans |
Walker, 1856 |
AS, MN, ML, MR, NL, TR |
SR, MM, SEA |
|
Tribe: Orgyiini |
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
*Calliteara angulata |
Hampson, 1895 |
ML |
NP, SEA |
|
98 |
Calliteara grotei |
(Moore, 1859) |
NE |
SEA |
|
99 |
Calliteara sp. |
|
NE |
SEA |
|
100 |
Dasychira sp. |
|
NE |
AF, AU |
|
101 |
Ilema cf. chloroptera |
(Hampson, [1893]) |
ML, NL |
HP, AR |
|
Family: Euteliidae Subfamily: Euteliinae |
||||
|
102 |
*Targalla apicifascia |
Hampson, 1894 |
NE |
SR, MM, TN, HP, MH, WB |
|
103 |
*Eutelia discistriga |
Walker, 1865 |
NE |
SR |
|
Family: Nolidae Subfamily: Westermanniinae |
||||
|
104 |
*Westermannia superba |
Hübner, 1823 |
NE |
SR, AU, TN, KL, KR |
|
Subfamily: Chloephorinae Tribe: Careini |
||||
|
105 |
Xenochroa sp. |
|
NE |
BT, SR, BOR, TN, KL, MH |
|
Family: Noctuidae Subfamily: Acronictinae |
||||
|
106 |
Acronicta sp. |
|
NE |
CN, KR, JPN |
* indicates first report from
Nagaland.
AF—Africa | AP—Andhra Pradesh |
AR—Arunachal Pradesh | AS—Assam | AU—Australia | BD—Bangladesh | BOR—Borneo |
BT—Bhutan | CG—Chhattisgarh | FJ—Fiji | HP—Himachal Pradesh | ID—Indonesia |
JK—Jammu & Kashmir | JPN—Japan | KA—Karnataka | KL—Kerela | KR—Korea |
MH—Maharashtra | ML—Meghalaya | MM—Myanmar | MN—Manipur | MP—Madhya Pradesh |
MR—Mizoram | MY—Malaysia | NE—North-east | NL—Nagaland | NP—Nepal | PK—Pakistan
| SEA—southeastern Asia | SR—Sri Lanka | TH—Thailand | TN—Tamil Nadu |
TR—Tripura | TW—Taiwan | UK—Uttarakhand | WB—West Bengal.
FOR
FIGURES & IMAGES - - CLICK HERE FOR FULL PDF
REFERENCES
Andersen,
A.N., A. Fisher, B.D. Hoffmann, J.L. Read & R. Richards (2004). Use of terrestrial invertebrates
for biodiversity monitoring in Australian rangelands, with particular reference
to ants. Austral Ecology 29(1): 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01362.x
Anderson, M.,
E.L. Rotheray & F. Mathews (2023). Marvellous moths! pollen
deposition rate of bramble (Rubus futicosus L. agg.) is greater at night
than day. PLoS One 18(3): e0281810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281810
Devoto, M.,
S. Bailey & J. Memmott (2011). The ‘night shift’: nocturnal pollen-transport
networks in a boreal pine forest. Ecological Entomology 36(1):
25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01247.x
Dey, P., V.P.
Uniyal & A.K. Sanyal (2015). Moth assemblages (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) as a
potential tool for biodiversity monitoring-study in western Himalayan protected
areas. Indian Forester 141(9): 985–992.
Fox, K., P.
Vitt, K. Anderson, G. Fauske, S. Travers, D. Vik & M.O. Harris (2013). Pollination of a threatened
orchid by an introduced hawk moth species in the tallgrass prairie of North
America. Biological Conservation 167: 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.026
Government of
Nagaland. Annual
Administrative Report 2024–2025. Department of Soil and Water Conservation.
https://snwc.nagaland.gov.in
Grimm, N.B.,
D. Foster, P. Groffman, J.M. Grove, C.S. Hopkinson, K.J. Nadelhoffer, D.E.
Pataki & D.P. Peters (2013). The changing landscape: ecosystem responses to
urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 6(5): 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1890/070147
Hampson, G.F.
(1892). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Volume 1. Taylor
and Francis Ltd., London, 527 pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1894). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Volume 2. Taylor
and Francis Ltd., London, 609 pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1895). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Volume 3. Taylor and
Francis Ltd., London, 546 pp.
Hampson, G.F.
(1896). The Fauna of
British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Volume 4. Taylor
and Francis Ltd., London, 594 pp.
Haruta, T.
(Eds.) (1992). Moths of Nepal Part 1, Tinea 13 (Supplement 2). Japan Heterocerists’ Society,
Tokyo, 122 pp.
Haruta, T.
(Eds.) (1993). Moths of Nepal Part 2, Tinea 13 (Supplement 3). Japan Heterocerists’ Society,
Tokyo, 160 pp.
Haruta, T.
(Eds.) (1994). Moths of Nepal Part 3, Tinea 14 (Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo, 171 pp.
Haruta, T.
(Eds.) (1995). Moths of Nepal Part 4, Tinea 14 (Supplement 2). Japan Heterocerists’ Society,
Tokyo, 206 pp.
Haruta, T.
(Eds.) (1998). Moths of Nepal Part 5, Tinea 15(Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’ Society,
Tokyo, 330 pp.
Haruta, T.
(Eds.) (2000). Moths of Nepal Part 6, Tinea 16 (Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’ Society, Tokyo,
163 pp.
Highland, S.
A., J.C. Miller & J.A. Jones (2013). Determinants of moth diversity
and community in a temperate mountain landscape: vegetation, topography, and
seasonality. Ecosphere 4(10): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00384.1
Hill, G.M.,
A.Y. Kawahara, J.C. Daniels, C.C. Bateman & B.R. Scheffers (2021). Climate change effects on animal
ecology: butterflies and moths as a case study. Biological Reviews
96(5): 2113–2126. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12746
Hilt, N.
& K. Fiedler (2006). Arctiid moth ensembles along a successional gradient in the Ecuadorian
montane rain forest zone: how different are subfamilies and tribes? Journal
of Biogeography 33(1): 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01360.x
iNaturalist
(2025). iNaturalist
Research-grade Observations. iNaturalist.org. Accessed on 15 March 2025.
Joshi, R.,
P.C. Pathania, A. Das, A. Mazumder, R. Ranjan & N. Singh (2021). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Heterocera
(Moths). Faunal diversity of biogeographic zone of India: NorthEast.
Director Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, pp. 511–576.
Kerr, J.T.,
A. Sugar & L. Packer (2000). Indicator taxa, rapid biodiversity assessment, and
nestedness in an endangered ecosystem. Conservation Biology 14:
1726–1734. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2000.99275.x
Khan, A.U.,
N.U. Poly, S. Dutta & F. Alam (2023). Lepidopteran Insects Status and
Diversity: A Review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Natural Science
3(1): 55–80. https://doi.org/10.47352/jmans.2774-3047.140
Kitching,
R.L., A.G. Orr, H.M. Thalib, M.S. Hopkins & A.W. Graham (2000). Moth assemblages as indicators
of environment quality in remnants of upland Australian rain forest. Journal
of Applied Ecology 32(2): 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00490.x
Kumar, V.,
S.R. Kundu, 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
LeCroy, K.A.,
H.W. Shew & P.A. van Zandt (2013). Pollen presence on nocturnal
moths in the Ketona Dolomite glades of Bibb County, Alabama. Southern
Lepidopterists’ News 35(3): 136–142.
Maes, D., W.
Langeraert, T. Onkelinx, H. van Calster, W. Veraghtert & T. Merckx (2024). Species traits to guide moth
conservation in anthropogenic regions: a multi-species approach using
distribution trends in Flanders (northern Belgium). Insect Conservation
and Diversity 17(6): 1016–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12767
Moths of
India. (n.d.). An
online resource. Available at https://www.mothsofindia.org/node/14. Accessed on
1.vi.2025.
Mozhui, L.,
A. Rana, K. Neikha & L.N. Kakati (2020). A checklist of long horn
beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Lumami, Zunheboto District, Nagaland with
23 new records. Halteres 11: 118–128. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4405843
Nneji, L.M.,
A.C. Adeola, Y.Y. Wang, A.M. Ajao, O. Anyaele, Y. Malann & C.S. Olory
(2020). Testing the
effectiveness of DNA barcoding for biodiversity assessment of moths from
Nigeria. Diversity 12(2): 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12020085
Peralta, G.,
C.M. Frost, T.A. Rand, R.K. Didham & J.M. Tylianakis (2014). Complementarity and redundancy
of interactions enhance attack rates and spatial stability in host–parasitoid
food webs. Ecology 95(7): 1888–1896. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1569.1
Regier, J.C.,
A. Zwick, M.P. Cummings, A.Y. Kawahara, S. Cho, S. Weller, A. Roe, J. Baixeras,
J.W. Brown, C. Parr & D.R. Davis (2009). Toward reconstructing the
evolution of advanced moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera: Ditrysia): an initial
molecular study. BioMed Central Evolutionary Biology 9: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-280
Schowalter,
T.D., W.W. Hargrove & D.A. Crossley (1986). Herbivory in forested
ecosystems. Annual review of Entomology 31(1): 177–196.
Thomas, C.D.,
A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham & S.E.
Williams (2004). Extinction
risk from climate change. Nature 427(6970): 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02121
Thomas, J.A.
(2005). Monitoring
change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other
indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 360(1454): 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585
Wagner, D.L.
(2012). Moth decline
in the northeastern United States. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 54(2):
52–56.
Wagner, D.L.
(2025). Moths
of the World: A Natural History. Princeton University Press, 240 pp.
Walther,
G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J. Beebee, J.M. Fromentin,
O.H. Guldberg & F. Bairlein (2002). Ecological responses to recent
climate change. Nature 416(6879): 389. https://doi.org/10.1038/416389a
Warren, M.S.,
J.K. Hill, J.A. Thomas, J. Asher, R. Fox, B. Huntley & C. Thomas (2001). Rapid responses of British
butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414(6859):
65–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/35102054
Zethner, O., R. Koustrup, A.M.S.
Reza, D.K. Subba, D. Barooah, N. Barooah, M.M. Win, S. Tiwari, Y. Dhoj, G.A.
Bajwa, R.A. Bajwa & D. Ahangama (2015). South Asian ways of silk: a
patchwork of biology, manufacture, culture and history. Bookbell, Guwahati, Assam,
254 pp.