Insects of Britain and Ireland: the genera of Lepidoptera-Geometridae

DELTA home

L. Watson and M. J. Dallwitz

Character list

#1. <Synonyms:>/

Adults

#2. <When adults active:>/

1. diurnal/

2. crepuscular/

3. nocturnal/

Most of the family are crepuscular and/or nocturnal, but direct records are sparse, and there are some notable exceptions. Daytime fliers are more often directly recorded in this context.

#3. <Build of adults - reflecting relative (not absolute) body size:>/

1. relatively stout-bodied <wingspan less than 10 times the maximum thoracic width>/

2. slender-bodied <wingspan more than 10 times the thoracic width> /

Data calculated from the numeric character relating wingspan to thoracic width (q.v.).

#4. <Whether adults winged or apterous:>/

1. with fully developed wings <operational for flight> /

2. flightless/

Apterous females, or females with greatly reduced wings, occur in several families.

#5. The flightless females <adults, whether winged or apterous>/

1. with rudimentary wings/

2. apterous/

#6. Antennae of males <form; see Notes before applying this character to identifications>/

1. bipectinate/

2. with short, paired processes on either side of each joint, emitting fascicles of cilia/

3. <unilaterally> dentate <including ‘serrate’>/

4. simple/

Some caution is required in using this character, because (1), the descriptions refer exclusively to male insects; and (2), the literature consulted is unconvincing regarding details of non-pectinate forms. However, since the occurrence of bipectinated antennae is well documented, and since an insect with bipectinated antennae will presumably be a male, possession by a specimen of state 1 is certainly a useful identificatory state. The other states are best avoided for this purpose. ‘Clubbed antennae’ (q.v.) are dealt with as a separate character which is applicable to lepidopterans of both sexes, and are here arbitrarily classed as ‘simple’ (with reference to the shaft).

#7. Antennae of males <bipectinate, whether apex simple>/

1. bipectinate to the apex/

2. apically simple/

#8. Antennae of males <whether ciliate; see Notes before applying this character to identifications>/

1. non-ciliate/

2. simply-ciliate/

3. fasciculate-ciliate/

4. pubescent/

This character is potentially valuable; but the data compiled to date do not inspire confidence, and anyway refer only to males.

#9. Face <smooth or rough>/

1. smooth <with appressed scales>/

2. rough <with projecting scales, a cone of scales, rough-haired, etc.>/

#10. <Compound, main> eyes <of adults, hairy or glabrous>/

1. hairy/

2. glabrous/

#11. Eyes <whether crossed by sub-antennal hair-tufts>/

1. each crossed by a sub-antennal hair-tuft/

2. not crossed by sub-antennal hair-tufts /

#12. Labial palps <carriage>/

1. drooping/

2. porrect <pointing forward, beak-like>/

3. ascending/

As shown in the illustrations, the popular and euphonious description ‘porrected palps’ refers to labial palps, which lend the delightful, perky appearance to the face presented by several groups of Lepidoptera. These organs generally retain their position in ‘set’ specimens. However, from the standpoint of useful description, there exists in reality an awkward continuum of forms, from ‘porrected’ through ‘ascending’ to ‘erect’.

#13. Tongue <of adults, whether fully developed and functional>/

1. fully developed <functional for feeding>/

2. absent <or vestigial, minute>/

#14. Wingspan <centre of thorax to tip of forewing, multiplied by 2>/

mm/

#15. Forewings <broad or narrow>/

1. relatively narrow-elongate <more than twice as long as wide>/

2. relatively broad <less than twice as long as wide> /

The assessments are based on base-to-apex length, divided by the approximate maximum width measured at right angles to a line drawn from base to tornus (i.e., approximately at right angles to the hind or inner margin).

#16. Forewings <proportions, length relative to width>/

times as long as wide <base-to-apex length, divided by maximum width measured at right angles from hind margin to costa>/

The assessments are based on base-to-apex length, divided by the approximate maximum width measured at right angles to a line drawn from base to tornus (i.e., approximately at right angles to the hind or inner margin).

#17. The outer and hind margins <of the forewing membranes> angled at <degrees>/

degrees <at the tornus>/

#18. The outer margin <termen> of the forewing <shape>/

1. convexly curved/

2. more or less straight/

3. sigmoid-curved/

4. angulated/

#19. The outer margin <termen> of the forewing <whether scalloped>/

1. scalloped/

2. <relatively> smooth <no more than somewhat sinuous - not scalloped> /

#20. Forewings apically <shape>/

1. blunt/

2. pointed/

3. hooked/

#21. Forewings <whether yellow, green or black> /

1. predominantly yellow/

2. predominantly green when fresh/

3. predominantly black/

4. not predominantly green, yellow, or black /

#22. Forewings <pervasive colour: general impression when viewed at about 40 cm in good natural light (for descriptions only)>/

Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative description of ‘The Beautiful Carpet’ with Meyrick's inadequate and boring attempt to be scientific.

Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.

Fuscous: sombre brownish grey.

Ochreous: pale yellowish- or orangish-brownish, straw-coloured.

Umber: greenish brown. ‘Burnt umber’: dark (as if charred) greenish brown.

#23. Forewings <ground colour of upper side> predominantly /

1. white/

2. whitish/

3. pale ochreous/

4. ochreous/

5. cream/

6. yellow/

7. orange/

8. purple, purplish, red, pinkish or rosy/

9. green/

10. greenish/

11. light brown/

12. brown/

13. pale fuscous/

14. fuscous/

15. pale grey/

16. grey/

17. blackish/

18. black/

Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative description of ‘The Beautiful Carpet’ with Meyrick's inadequate and boring attempt to be scientific.

Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.

Fuscous: sombre brownish grey.

Ochreous: pale yellowish- or orangish-brownish, straw-coloured.

Umber: greenish brown. ‘Burnt umber’: dark (as if charred) greenish brown.

#24. Forewings <presence of transparent discal scar>/

1. exhibiting a transparent discal scar/

2. without a transparent discal scar /

#25. Forewings <presence of discal mark>/

1. with a clear discal mark/

2. without a clear discal mark/

#26. The discal mark <of the forewings, whether dark-ringed>/

1. conspicuously pale-centred and dark-ringed/

2. not dark-ringed /

#27. Forewings <whether exhibiting a conspicuously shaded or coloured transverse median band>/

1. with a distinct median band <extending from mid-costa to the middle of the hind margin, different in shade or colour from the ground colour of the wing>/

2. without a median band <of distinct shade or colour, regardless of transverse lines>/

#28. Forewings <whether with a pale ‘rivulet’: i.e., a narrow, wavy, pale transverse band containing a median dark line>/

1. with a transverse post-median ‘rivulet’/

2. without a post-median ‘rivulet’ /

#29. Forewings <presence of a red stripe>/

1. traversed by a conspicuous, oblique red stripe/

2. without an oblique red stripe /

#30. Forewings <whether eye-spotted above>/

1. eye-spotted above/

2. without eye-spots above /

#31. Forewings of the male <presence of fovea>/

1. with a fovea/

2. without a fovea/

‘Fovea’: a circular depression in the lower surface of the forewing, usually situated near a basal fork in vein 1b. It is often sub-hyaline, and sometimes surmounted by a small, thickened gland (cf. Meyrick).

#32. The outer margin of the hindwings <whether rounded, angled or tailed>/

1. rounded /

2. angled/

3. tailed/

#33. The outer margin of the hindwings <whether scalloped>/

1. scalloped/

2. <relatively> smooth <no more than somewhat sinuous - not scalloped> /

#34. <The upper surfaces of the> hindwings <patterned or plain>/

1. conspicuously patterned <conspicuously lined, spotted, banded, blotched, streaked, etc.>/

2. <relatively> plain <concolourous, or merely shaded or suffused, or with only faint lines, or with only a discal mark>/

#35. Hindwings <ground colour: general impression when viewed at about 40 cm in good natural light (for descriptions only)>/

Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative description of ‘The Beautiful Carpet’ with Meyrick's inadequate and boring attempt to be scientific.

Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.

Fuscous: sombre brownish grey.

Ochreous: pale yellowish- or orangish-brownish, straw-coloured.

Umber: greenish brown. ‘Burnt umber’: dark (as if charred) greenish brown.

#36. Hindwings <ground colour of upper side> predominantly /

1. white/

2. whitish/

3. pale ochreous/

4. ochreous/

5. cream/

6. yellow/

7. orange/

8. purple, purplish, red, pinkish or rosy/

9. green/

10. greenish/

11. light brown/

12. brown/

13. pale fuscous/

14. fuscous/

15. pale grey/

16. grey/

17. blackish/

18. black/

Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative description of ‘The Beautiful Carpet’ with Meyrick's inadequate and boring attempt to be scientific.

Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.

Fuscous: sombre brownish grey.

Ochreous: pale yellowish- or orangish-brownish, straw-coloured.

Umber: greenish brown. ‘Burnt umber’: dark (as if charred) greenish brown.

#37. Hindwings <whether yellow, green or black> /

1. predominantly yellow/

2. predominantly green when fresh/

3. predominantly black/

4. not predominantly green, yellow, or black /

#38. <The upper surfaces of the> hindwings <whether exhibiting a discal mark>/

1. with a clear <pigmented> discal mark/

2. without a clear discal mark/

#39. The discal mark <of the hindwings, whether dark-ringed>/

1. conspicuously pale-centred and dark-ringed/

2. not dark-ringed /

#40. <The upper surfaces of the> hindwings <whether exhibiting transverse lines>/

1. transversely lined <lines detectable, continuous, or dotted>/

2. without transverse lines/

#41. Forewings <total number of longitudinal tubular veins, counted distally to any bifurcations>/

veined/

Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more prominent but may still require removal of the scales.

The neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot (1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the levels of intra-taxon variation encoded.

The abstruse descriptive terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick (1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are “missing” with reference to the “standard” (cf. the diagram accessible via the ‘Lepidopteran morphology’ toolbar button). Also, in the absence of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the required distinctions between “tubular” veins and their vestigial (“reduced”, “obsolescent”, “obsolete”, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the same species are common (see our accounts of Endromis versicolora and Sesia bombiformis). The available data are evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient for application, their frequent use at critical positions in professional printed keys is unfortunate.

#42. Forewings <number of (at least partially tubular) anal veins>/

1. lacking anal veins/

2. with 1 <at least partly tubular> anal vein/

3. with 2 <at least partly tubular> anal veins/

4. with 3 <at least partly tubular> anal veins/

Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more prominent but may still require removal of the scales.

The neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot (1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the levels of intra-taxon variation encoded.

The abstruse descriptive terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick (1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are “missing” with reference to the “standard” (cf. the diagram accessible via the ‘Lepidopteran morphology’ toolbar button). Also, in the absence of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the required distinctions between “tubular” veins and their vestigial (“reduced”, “obsolescent”, “obsolete”, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the same species are common (see our accounts of Endromis versicolora and Sesia bombiformis). The available data are evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient for application, their frequent use at critical positions in professional printed keys is unfortunate.

#43. The <tubular> anal veins of the forewings <identification of those present>/

1. representing 1b only/

2. comprising 1b and 1c <only>/

3. comprising 1a and 1b <only>/

4. comprising 1a, 1b and 1c/

Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more prominent but may still require removal of the scales.

The neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot (1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the levels of intra-taxon variation encoded.

The abstruse descriptive terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick (1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are “missing” with reference to the “standard” (cf. the diagram accessible via the ‘Lepidopteran morphology’ toolbar button). Also, in the absence of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the required distinctions between “tubular” veins and their vestigial (“reduced”, “obsolescent”, “obsolete”, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the same species are common (see our accounts of Endromis versicolora and Sesia bombiformis). The available data are evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient for application, their frequent use at critical positions in professional printed keys is unfortunate.

#44. Forewings <whether exhibiting vein 1c>/

1. exhibiting a tubular vein 1c <i.e., this tubular for at least for at least part of its length>/

2. lacking a tubular vein 1c/

#45. Vein 1b of the forewings <simple or furcate>/

1. furcate proximally/

2. obsoletely furcate <proximally>/

3. simple/

#46. The transverse vein <of the forewings, complete or incomplete>/

1. complete/

2. incomplete <partially either lacking or vestigial>/

3. vestigial only/

4. lacking/

#47. Vein 10 of the forewings <origin relative to vein 9>/

1. arising out of vein 9/

2. arising independently of 9/

#48. Vein 10 of the forewings <anastomoses and areoles>/

1. arising independently, anastomosing with 11 and 9 to form a double areole/

2. arising out of 11 and anastomosing with 9 to form a simple areole/

#49. <Comments on neuration of forewings>/

Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more prominent but may still require removal of the scales.

The neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot (1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the levels of intra-taxon variation encoded.

The abstruse descriptive terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick (1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are “missing” with reference to the “standard” (cf. the diagram accessible via the ‘Lepidopteran morphology’ toolbar button). Also, in the absence of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the required distinctions between “tubular” veins and their vestigial (“reduced”, “obsolescent”, “obsolete”, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the same species are common (see our accounts of Endromis versicolora and Sesia bombiformis). The available data are evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient for application, their frequent use at critical positions in professional printed keys is unfortunate.

#50. Hindwings <total number of longitudinal tubular veins, counted distally to any bifurcations>/

veined/

#51. Hindwings <number of at least partially tubular anal veins>/

1. lacking <tubular> anal veins/

2. with 1 anal vein/

3. with 2 anal veins/

4. with 3 anal veins/

#52. The <tubular> anal veins of the hindwings <identification of those present>/

1. representing 1b only/

2. comprising 1b and 1c <only>/

3. comprising 1a and 1b <only>/

4. comprising 1a, 1b and 1c/

Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more prominent but may still require removal of the scales.

The neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot (1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the levels of intra-taxon variation encoded.

The abstruse descriptive terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick (1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are “missing” with reference to the “standard” (cf. the diagram accessible via the ‘Lepidopteran morphology’ toolbar button). Also, in the absence of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the required distinctions between “tubular” veins and their vestigial (“reduced”, “obsolescent”, “obsolete”, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the same species are common (see our accounts of Endromis versicolora and Sesia bombiformis). The available data are evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient for application, their frequent use at critical positions in professional printed keys is unfortunate.

#53. The transverse vein <of the hindwings, complete or incomplete>/

1. complete/

2. incomplete <partially either lacking or vestigial>/

3. vestigial only/

4. lacking/

#54. <Number of tubular veins originating from the hindwing cell - including vein 8 if this coincides or anastomoses with it:>/

<tubular> veins arising from the hindwing cell/

#55. Hindwings <presence of a tubular vein 5>/

1. exhibiting a tubular vein 5 <M2>/

2. lacking a tubular vein 5/

#56. Vein 5 <M2> of the hindwings <position of insertion on the transverse vein>/

1. arising from well above the middle of the transverse vein <i.e., nearer to vein 6 than to vein 4>/

2. arising from about the middle of the transverse vein <i.e., about equidistant from veins 4 and 6>/

3. arising from below the middle of the transverse vein <i.e., nearer to vein 4 than to vein 6>/

#57. Vein 8 of the hindwings <relationship to the cell>/

1. completely independent of the cell/

2. joined to the cell only by a bar/

3. anastomosing with the upper margin of the cell <free from it both basally and distally to the anastomosis>/

4. arising from the upper margin of the cell <coincident with the cell from its base>/

Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more prominent but may still require removal of the scales.

The neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot (1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the levels of intra-taxon variation encoded.

The abstruse descriptive terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick (1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are “missing” with reference to the “standard” (cf. the diagram accessible via the ‘Lepidopteran morphology’ toolbar button). Also, in the absence of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the required distinctions between “tubular” veins and their vestigial (“reduced”, “obsolescent”, “obsolete”, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the same species are common (see our accounts of Endromis versicolora and Sesia bombiformis). The available data are evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient for application, their frequent use at critical positions in professional printed keys is unfortunate.

#58. Vein 8 of the hindwings <alignment with the upper margin of the cell>/

1. shortly anastomosed basally with the upper margin of the cell, thence rapidly diverging/

2. approximated to or anastomosed with the upper margin of the cell to the middle or beyond/

#59. Hindwing veins 6 and 7 <whether stalked>/

1. stalked/

2. separate/

#60. <Comments on neuration of hindwings:>/

#61. Thorax <crested or not>/

1. crested/

2. smooth <not crested>/

#62. Thorax <hairy or glabrous beneath>/

1. hairy beneath/

2. glabrous beneath/

#63. Posterior tibiae of males <number of tibial spurs>/

1. without spurs/

2. 2-spurred/

3. 4-spurred/

In common with those describing antennal morphology, and for similar reasons, this character is not reliably applicable to female specimens.

The data are mostly taken from Meyrick, who rarely refers directly to the situation in females, and provides no information at all on tibial spurs of Ennominae. Examination of material to hand suggests that Ennominae (males and females) probably all have both middle and end-spurs, and this condition is assumed for them in the descriptions. Also, it appears that when males have all four spurs, the corresponding females also have them all; on the other hand, as indicated by text comments in the data, when the males lack middle spurs, the condition in the corresponding females sometimes differs (nor can it be assumed that all four are present in females when Meyrick fails to mention them).

Meyrick's key to the Sterrhinae (p. 195), which relies on this character, contains a major error (for male read female?).

#64. Posterior tibiae <of adults, whether hairy>/

1. hairy/

2. not hairy <i.e., smooth or spiny>/

#65. The abdomen <patterned or plain>/

1. conspicuously patterned <with stripes, bands, spots, etc.>/

2. plain <ignoring effect of segmentation on hair distribution, and antero-dorsal crests of darker hairs>/

Early stages

#66. Larvae feeding on/

#67. Pupae <concealed, location>/

1. subterranean/

2. on the surface of the ground/

3. above the ground/

#68. Pupae <concealed, above ground, detailed location>/

1. under bark/

2. in stems/

3. in wood/

4. in <often dried> leaves/

5. in <often dried> flowers/

6. in fruits/

British representation

#69. <Number of species in Britain, including ‘adventives’>/

species/

Bradley (2000) details in precise terms the national status of many species, including those here tagged ‘adventive’. The term as used here denotes ‘not native to this environment’, and includes species usually indicated in check lists as ‘of doubtful British status’. Assignment is inevitably somewhat arbitrary, because situations where specimens have been rarely but genuinely found at large in the British Isles as a result of migrations beyond the normal range of a species, or of accidental transport by human agencies, are hard to disentangle from honest but erroneous records and cases of fraud. Migrant species recorded regularly in Britain as adults but which are unable breed successfully there are treated as ‘native’ in this connection.

#70. <Distribution in the British Isles:>/

1. South-east England <East of 0.20' to 52.00' N.>/

2. Central-southern England <0.20'-2.40' West, to 52.00' N.>/

3. South-west England <West of 2.40' W., to 52.00' N.>/

4. English Midlands <52.00–53.20' N., .20'-2.40' West>/

5. Northern England <53.20'-55.20'>/

6. Southern Scotland/

7. Northern Scotland/

8. Wales/

9. Ireland/

#71. Living adults found <months>/

1. January/

2. February/

3. March/

4. April/

5. May/

6. June/

7. July/

8. August/

9. September/

10. October/

11. November/

12. December/

#72. <British species (scientific and common names):>/

Complete lists of species and genera are given here, cf. Bradley et al. (1972).

Bradley (2000) details in precise terms the national status of many species, including those here tagged ‘adventive’. The term as used here denotes ‘not native to this environment’, and includes species usually indicated in check lists as ‘of doubtful British status’. Assignment is inevitably somewhat arbitrary, because situations where specimens have been rarely but genuinely found at large in the British Isles as a result of migrations beyond the normal range of a species, or of accidental transport by human agencies, are hard to disentangle from honest but erroneous records and cases of fraud. Migrant species recorded regularly in Britain as adults but which are unable breed successfully there are treated as ‘native’ in this connection.

Subfamily

#73. <Tribe (Bradley, 2000):>/

1. Archiearinae/

2. Alsophilinae/

3. Geometrinae/

4. Sterrhinae/

5. Larentiinae/

6. Ennominae/

Tribal classification after Bradley (2000).

General comments

#74. <General comments:>/


To view the illustrations with detailed captions, go to the interactive key. This also offers full and partial descriptions, diagnostic descriptions, differences and similarities between taxa, lists of taxa exhibiting or lacking specified attributes, and distributions of character states within any set of taxa.

Cite this publication as: ‘Watson, L., and Dallwitz, M.J. 2003 onwards. Insects of Britain and Ireland: the genera of Lepidoptera-Geometridae. Version: 8th June 2016. delta-intkey.com’.

Contents