PLANNING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 2015

President:

Vice President: John Moss 07 3245 2997

Treasurer: Rob MacSloy 07 3824 4348

Secretary: Jill Fechner 0417 793 659

Magazine: Daphne Bowden (daphne.bowden1 @bigpond.com) 07 3396 6334

Publicity and Library: Lois Hughes 07 3206 6229

Excursion Co-ordinator: Alisha Steward 07 3275 1186

Committee Members: Ross Kendall 07 3378 1187

Richard Zietek 07 3390 1950

PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION MEETINGS

A quarterly meeting is scheduled 1n order to plan club activities and the magazine.

See BOIC Programme.

CONTACT ADDRESS AND MEMBERSHIP DETAILS

PO Box 2113, Runcorn, Queensland 4113

Membership fees are $30 for individuals, schools and organizations.

AIMS OF THE ORGANIZATION

e To establish a network of people growing butterfly host plants;

e To hold information meetings about invertebrates;

e To organize excursions around the theme of invertebrates e.g. butterflies,

native bees, ants, dragonflies, beetles, freshwater habitats, and others;

To promote the conservation of the invertebrate habitat;

To promote the keeping of invertebrates as alternative pets;

To promote research into invertebrates;

To encourage the construction of invertebrate friendly habitats in urban areas.

MAGAZINE DEADLINES

If you wish to submit an item for publication the following deadlines apply:

March issue — February 1* June issue — May 1*

September issue — August 1* December issue — November 1°

All articles should be submitted directly to the Editor daphne.bowden1l(@bigpond.com

ALL MATERIAL IN THIS MAGAZINE IS COPYRIGHT TO BOIC AND THE

AUTHORS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS INVOLVED.

COVER PAINTING

White-collared Ladybird (Hippodamia variegata) — Painting by Lois Hughes

BEDS PE DS PF DE be PE DS De Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 2

EDITORIAL

28 October 2015

Dear BOIC Secretary,

After careful consideration please accept this as written notice of my resignation as

the president of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club effective immediately. My

work commitments have escalated in the last six weeks and look set to continue for

some time. As a result, I do not feel I can give the club the time and energy that it

needs from a president. I would welcome continuing to be a member and

participating in club activities but think it best to allow a person with suitable time

and energy to work on improving the running of the club. I wish the club well in its

future and thank those members of the committee that gave me support particularly in

the start of my role.

Regards Marie-Louise

We sincerely thank Marie-Louise for her time and efforts as President and hope to see

her at club excursions 1n the future when time permits. It was decided at our

November meeting that the committee will share the role across its members until a

new president 1s elected at our AGM in April 2016.

Our final magazine for 2015 1s, as always, full of information about the small

creatures that fascinate and amaze us. From Ladybirds to Moths, Stick Insects to

Beetles, and plants that are home to them, I know you will find plenty of interest

amongst our articles.

Continued on page 43

Creature Feature - Story of a New Ladybird Hippodamia Varie gat ........cccccccccceseeeees 4+

AIS WOM HOM MISE CES” Bic; ccicedecrgeansacpasteseiaedaetasnae savers taco sense aaeni saw heensh rune erawhivaseaarnr ee 5

Life history notes on the Hairy Line-blue, Erysichton lineata lineata .......0......6000cc000e 8

Leatcutter Bees — Megachile (Eutricharaca) .........ccccccccccsssccccesecccceneccecesececeeecceeeeceeees 1]

New Distribution Records for Coeliadine and Trapezitine Butterflies in Australia .... 13

Indigo Flash (Rapala varuna): what 1s it with their caterpillars? oo. eeeeeeeees 3]

Carden? Tor BUMerties:-— Parl ..cccssesasivavanshetreniandieserrs toevdieneguanibslecuieh diseases exten enrats 32

Ladybird Beetle Pn oto Galery. vvtivicsncciorsssctswansgsaguveenetaetss eceieseadetivnengsh suv eniedewi on peemerveres 34

In the Garden — Spiny Stick Insect and Pale Cillated Blue... eecccceeeeeeees 37

You Asked - Caterpillars feeding on Sundew: Droseraceae .............cccesccccsseccceeeceeeeees 38

The Case of Two Naked Cases (Psychidae : Lepidoptera).................... 39

Reports - Moth Day 22 Avisrist 20 US -.occacssacsscnsascdcexersensonsaacssenestessnned sevseayaded soneadinicbe: 4]

An Introduction to Butterfly Gardening 24" October.......cccccsscssceceeseeeeeeees 42

FS CG ghI) OVATE § cryin vexPaue Mecuviele ventana aevaneaee reece hanes Senet a oh sana ey oe eae neuer nee ieee Sealey 43

BEDS REDS PF OE be PE DE De Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 3

CREATURE FEATURE

Story of a New Ladybird — Bernard Franzman

This ladybird 1s common in backyards in south-east Queensland.

I found it at Gatton in 2000. There were quite a few of them feeding on aphids in a

sorghum crop.

I hadn’t seen them before and so I was very excited. I thought it might be Hippodamia

convergens, which 1s a very important aphid predator in crops in the USA. A few days

later it was confirmed by CSIRO that 1t was Hippodamia variegata. This was a new

ladybird in Australia.

I contacted colleagues and looked further afield, and within a few months we

confirmed that it had spread across the Darling Downs. Within a year it had been

found from Emerald in the north to Griffith in the south and had reached Perth a year

later.

Some interesting things

It is very common in Europe where it is an important bio-control agent in many

aphid/crop situations. Seeing its potential the United States Department of

Agriculture, between 1987 and 1993, introduced half a million individuals in an

attempt to establish it as a bio-control agent against some of their aphid pests. After

10 years, it still had not established. However here it was established 1n Queensland

without anyone trying!!

Both the adults and juveniles are voracious feeders on many aphid species. Adults can

eat about 200 aphids a day for 8-9 weeks and the larvae consume 600-800 aphids,

before pupating about 8-10days after hatching

They don’t seem to like hot weather and become scarce in mid summer but start

activity earlier in the spring than many of the other common predatory ladybirds in

the area.

Some funny things

The TV program “Totally Wild” wanted to do a segment on the new ladybird. About

the same time I had found another new natural enemy of aphids — the little parasitic

wasp Lysephlebus testaceipes — so they decided to combine them in one story. We put

both aphid killers in one dish to get them on camera together and the ladybird

immediately jumped on the wasp and ate it! A rather exaggerated example of the

possible dangers of introductions of biological control agents.

BEDS REDS PF OE be PE DT De Pe be Pe be et Pe bd be bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 4

We had to find a common name to be used for

this new ladybird in Australia. In England, it is

called the Adonis Ladybird. In the USA, it is

called the Variegated Ladybird, which seems like

a good common-sense idea. However in

| + Australia we have the Variable Ladybird

~~ (Coelophora inaequalis) and so confusion may

arise. At one stage, I suggested to colleagues

that because it has a nice orange colour, like the

colour of the rising sun, we maybe should call it

White-collared Ladybird (Hippodamia the Dawn Ladybird and it just so happens that

variegata) — Photo K. Power my wife’s name is Dawn. Anyway I was only

kidding, but for a while it was known amongst

some people as the Dawny Bird. Ultimately we named it the White-collared Ladybird

for its distinctive white margin on the plate behind the head.

References:

Franzmann, B.A. (2002). Hippodamia variegata (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a

predacious ladybird new in Australia. Australian Journal of Entomology, 41: 375-377.

Franzmann, B., Wilson, L. and Smith, T. (2002). Two new bio-control agents for cotton

aphid. Proceedings of the 11'" Australian Cotton Conference, 329-333.

ITEMS OF INTEREST

Safe Sex for Insects — Densey Clyne

If you’re going to be a male in this

world, it’s best to be a human one.

Human males, traditionally providers

and protectors, evolved to be physically

bigger, stronger and more aggressive

than females. But in the immensely

larger world of the insects the roles and

the rule are often reversed because it’s

the female who protects and nurtures the

young. Female insects live longer and

are usually larger than their mates.

During mating, many simply get on with

what they were doing before, paying no

heed to the smaller male. He may be

dragged around in a most unseemly way,

yanked backwards and scrabbling for

purchase with his feet. Like a reluctant

husband taken shopping!

BEDS PE DS PF OE be PE DS De Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd be bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 5

Photo | Pterapotrechus sp. gryllacridids mating

For a male gryllacridid mating involves a series of violent, shudders, adding to his

precarious situation and perhaps hers as well. But the female, claws firmly embedded

in a branch, gives him every support. They’ll hang about like this for several hours,

perhaps all night.

Photos 2 and 3 — All very interesting, but “what’s a gryllacridid?” you might ask.

Answer, it’s an insect, a kind of tree cricket and there are a number of different

species. The name’s a combination of two words meaning cricket and grasshopper.

They share characteristics of both.

Photo 3 A gryllacridid from Kinchega National Park

Question is, what’s in this risky procedure

for the male — does the element of danger

spur him on? Who knows.

Photo 2 Arolla sp. gryllacridids mating at

Turramurra The male’s sperm 1s passed over to the

female in a globular, gelatinous capsule

(spermatophore) that remains attached outside her body. It has a particular purpose.

When the insects part company the female will stay where she 1s for some time,

slowly consuming the presumably nourishing capsule while the sperms continue

safely on their journey. Meanwhile the successful male will be long gone, perhaps in

search of another female to hang around with.

Photo 4 mantids mating — For many male

insects mating 1s a death-defying business,

especially among predatory species. The

female mantis’s habit of reaching back to

bite off her mate’s head is well known. It

helps 1f he’s too small to reach. Otherwise

it’s a case of keeping a low profile.

Amazingly, even 1f the worst happens, he’s

able to finish the job of insemination sans

caput. But eventually he becomes a source

of protein for the female in the development Photo 4 I’ve got my eye on you

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 6

of her offspring. If he’s lucky enough to survive, it will be only to continue his game

of Russian Roulette.

For some insects there’s simply no such thing as safe sex. The males of honeybees,

and other social bees that win the aerial race to mate with a new queen, die

immediately afterwards, often killed by the very act itself. They are expendable once

they’ve passed on their genes. The few females that survive the night’s activity fulfil

their destiny as long-lived queens producing the new generations of their kind.

Photos 5, 6, 7 — In a few insect groups the female is smaller than the male. For

instance, female flower wasps are often small by comparison with their mates, and

there’s good reason. They’re dependent on the superior strength and flying skills of

their partners. A female flower wasp emerges totally wingless from her pupation

underground, climbs the nearest plant, and sends out a scented call sign, a sex

pheromone. Down comes a fully winged male, scoops up his little mate and in mid-

air, the female dangling precariously below, they join the insect equivalent of the

Mile-high Club. Later the male wasp simply drops his consort in mid-flight. No

matter. Insects are lightweight and she reaches the ground unharmed, to tunnel

underground and lay her eggs on living beetle grubs.

~ ae | ay

Photo 7 Thinnid Flower Wasp — male Photo 6 A female Thinnid Flower Wasp waiting

for a lift

BEES PERE PE Pe DT be Pe Re be Pe De be Pe be bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 7

Photo 8,9 — Beetles mating — Speaking of beetles the business of mating may not

always be life-threatening but some males simply find it hard to get on top of the

subject. Shiny dome-shaped female beetles are difficult to mount and the females

don’t help. An amorous beetle must first scale the slippery slope of his ladylove. A

frustrated male will slip and slither behind his wobbling, bobbling and seemingly

uninterested mate until he gets a precarious purchase, and even then she’ Il try to shake

him off.

Clearly, persistence wins the day, because it has been estimated that one in every four

land animals on Planet Earth 1s a beetle ...

Fx 7 ne

é 7 ‘at : ws o) il

—— “4 7» 2M 7% J

Photo 8 Anaplognathus sp. Scarab beetles mating Photo 9 Punctate Flower Chafer, Polystigma

punctata, mating in Angophora hispida

Photos Densey Clyne

ee i i ee

Life history notes on the Hairy Line-blue, Erysichton lineata lineata

(Murray, 1874) Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae — Wesley Jenkinson

The Hairy Line-blue is encountered rather

sporadically from north-eastern Queensland

southwards to central coastal New South Wales. It 1s

known from coastal, sub-coastal regions and along

the Great Dividing Range. The species 1s locally

common in south-eastern Queensland.

The generally preferred habitats are tropical,

sie ay and littoral rainforest, as well as dry vine

scrub, and also in suburban gardens in south-eastern

Queensland where the host trees are growing.

The females can be observed flying 1n dappled sunlight within forested areas

searching for host trees. They frequently settle within a few of metres above ground

level. The males fly at the outer canopy and fly more rapidly than the females. They

typically settle on the outer foliage of trees with their head slightly angled downwards

BEDS PERT PS Pe Re be Pe Re be Pe De be Pe be bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 8

with wings closed deflecting the sunlight. They are very territorial and quickly chase

off other rival males and small lycaenids. In my garden, the females appear to be

observed more regularly feeding at flowers than do males. While feeding, the wings

remain closed and occasionally the hind wings are slightly alternated up and down.

Unlike many lycaenids, this species rarely bask with their wings open. During hot

days the adults of both sexes can also be observed imbibing moisture from the

eround. On one occasion, I saw a male imbibing froth from a spittlebug on a

Melaleuca tree.

The sexes are dimorphic, being very different 1n appearance.

Wingspans for the pictured males are 20mm and 23mm for the females.

Erysichton lineata lineata (Hairy Line-blue)

Images left to right: male, female, male underside, female underside

Several host plants in the families Boraginaceae, Malvaceae, Myrtaceae, Proteaceae

and Sapindaceae are listed in Braby 2000 and Moss 2010. The larvae feed on the

juvenile leaves, buds and flowers.

During May in 2009, a female was observed ovipositing on a young flower bud of a

Tuckeroo Tree (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) in my garden. She typically flew slowly

throughout the host tree branches and settled in a sheltered position. She then walked

around for a short period and curled her abdomen onto the base upperside of a flower

bud and laid a single egg. This egg was kept for life history studies. I have observed

females ovipositing during late morning to mid afternoon in sunny conditions.

This tiny egg was white, mandarin shaped with raised small rounded

projections, approximately 0.3mm high x 0.5mm wide.

* instar larva nd instar larva '¢ instar larva Ath instar larva

wd GF ET ea na Ba Ba ba pa na Ba ST na a ad AT

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 9

5"" instar larva lateral view 5" instar larva dorsal view

Kept in captivity, the larva did not consume the eggshell after emergence. The highly

camouflaged larva rested and fed openly during daylight hours on fresh leaf buds and

flower buds of the host plant. The larva completed five instars and attained a length of

10mm. It should be noted here that the larva was viewed under a microscope daily to

determine the change of instars. Unlike many small lycaenids, the larvae are not

attended by ants (Eastwood and Fraser 1999, in Braby 2000).

The pupa, measuring 8mm in length, was located

below a leaf of the host plant. It was attached with silk

by the cremaster and a central girdle. In natural

conditions, it appears uncertain where larvae pupate.

The total time from egg to adult was about 1.5

months, with egg duration of 5 days, larval duration

25 days and pupal duration of 12 days.

Within the boundary of the new Scenic Rim Regional

Shire south of Brisbane, I have adult records for all

months of the year, including the winter months where

frosts occur periodically. In this region records

indicate there are possibly 3 or 4 generations annually.

Acknowledgements: I thank my friend and colleague

John Moss for commenting on the manuscript.

Photos Wesley Jenkinson

Braby, M.F. 2000. Butterflies of Australia — Their Identification, Biology and Distribution. vol

2. CSIRO Publishing.

Moss, J.T. 2010. Butterfly Host Plants of south-east Queensland and northern New South

Wales. 3" edition, BOIC.

BEES PF DE DT be PED be be Pe bd be Oe bd Pe Pe hd bd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 10

Leafcutter Bees — Megachile (Eutricharaea) — Erica Siegel

There are about 27 species of leafcutter bees in the genus Megachile in Australia.

They are found in all states in both coastal and drier inland areas of Australia.

Leafcutter bees range 1n size from 6 mm to 15 mm. Most Leafcutter bees are black

and have white or orange-gold stripes of hair on the abdomen. They carry pollen on

abdominal scopae (special bristles) under the abdomen.

Megachile pictiventris Megachile serricauda

Leafcutter bees and Resin bees look similar, but Leafcutter bees can usually be

distinguished by their relatively wide abdomen which tapers into a point while Resin

bees have a narrower, cylindrical abdomen. Leafcutters alight on flowers with their

wings spread while Resin bees fold their wings.

Bee watchers often first discover the Leafcutter bees when they notice rows of neat

circular cuts on the edges of some leaves in their garden. Leafcutters use the discs of

leaf to build nests. They particularly like the soft leaves of roses, Bauhinia,

Desmodium and Buddleja.

Each female builds her own nest. The cut leaves are used to make a tube as a nest for

the eggs or line a hole in timber or masonry with it. They may nest in artificial bee

nests or in many different spaces such as gaps 1n door frames, folded towels, or

almost anywhere.

Leafcutter bee nest Unsuccessful nest incorporating Poinciana petals

later eaten by fungus

BEES Pe DE DT be PED be a Pe be be Re bd pe Pe bd bd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 11

The leaves are cut in various shapes, round and elongated, to suit the construction of

the cell for the egg. The cell 1s then stocked with a mixture of nectar and pollen in

which the Leafcutter bee lays her egg. More circular leaves are cut to close off the

cell before constructing the next one until the hole or tube is filled with cells. The hole

is then plugged with rough leaf cuttings.

When the eggs hatch the tiny larvae eat the provisions and when fully grown spin

silky cocoons, develop into pupae then emerge as adult bees. Immature bees may

hibernate through winter and finish developing into adults the next spring.

The leafcutter bees are parasitised by a minute wasp from the genus Melittobia and

hundreds may be found in one cocoon eating the larva.

The African Carder bee - Afranthidium

repetitum looks very similar to the

Leatfcutter bee and can be identified by

the hairless bands on the abdomen. The

bands on the Leafcutter bees are hairy.

Some of the plants Leafcutter bees forage

on are as follows.

Natives: Darling Pea, Pultenaea species,

Exotics: Gazania, Daisies, Leucophyllum,

Herbs: flowering Basil and weeds such as

Thistle.

BEDS PERT Pe Pe Pe be PE RT be Pe De be Pee bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 12

References: Photos Erica Siegel

Batley, Michael - Australian Museum

Dollin, Anne - Australian Native Bee Research Centre www.aussiebee.com.au

Dollin, A., Batley, M., Robinson, M. & Faulkner, B. 2000. Native Bees of the Sydney Region:

A Field Guide. Australian Native Bee Research Centre.

se ok 2k ak of ake ak ak akc 2k

New Distribution Records for Coeliadine and Trapezitine

Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in Australia — Kelvyn L. Dunn

Summary

This paper lists 19 new locations in Australia for 14 species of butterfly from the

subfamilies Coeliadinae and Trapezitinae. Each encounter-record 1s from a location

that falls outside the boundaries of the species’ distributions, as indicated on the

range-fill maps provided by Braby (2000). It also discusses relevant new locations

discovered by others since 2000, namely those that lie close to any listed 1n this paper.

Yet, in doing so, it does not reiterate historic distributions that underpin Braby (2000),

from wherein readers may source much of that baseline information. The new

locations for the species tabled provide ongoing evidence that there remains much to

learn about the spatial distribution of skipper butterflies across the continent and in

Tasmania. And to that end, the paper suggests and discusses strategies for dealing

with visual data gathering for skippers to ensure enthusiasts continue to contribute

reliable information to improve knowledge of species’ distribution.

Introduction

Adult skippers belonging to the subfamilies Coeliadinae and Trapezitinae can be

elusive in the field. Their brisk flight together with their small to moderate size and

sombre, often dappled colouring, collectively lower their visual profile on the wing.

Where present in suitable habitat, they may be patchy or localised in occurrence and

easily overlooked. An experienced eye will help to detect potential patrol areas (often

aligned with prominent landforms) or likely perch sites (often near specific host

plants), and will increase one’s chance of seeing and photographing the adults. The

link to landforms is fundamental for many; indeed, astute naturalists will have

observed that the various species of butterfly that exhibit hill-topping behaviour

PEPE PED De OE Pe Pa Re be Pe he bd Oe be Pe be bd Pd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 13

(which includes the skippers) may be locally abundant on high points. Yet, in those

surrounding areas of their home range, which include places where adults seek nectar

opportunistically and deposit eggs where food plants occur, they may go virtually

unseen. Once found, a good measure of personal skill, including visual acuity and

knowledge of the suite of species likely to be present locally (fine-tuned according to

their seasonality), and reinforced by rapid recall of important wing patterns, will help

identify some of them. Others may require close inspection by comparison with

preserved specimens. Because of these issues, Murphy (2011) has unashamedly

argued and demonstrated (in the report he compiled) that many (or even most)

skippers will be overlooked by casual observers or inexperienced biologists making

records of species’ presence. This situation would apply particularly to the survey of

more uniform habitats in the inland of the continent (especially those that lack

prominent ridges or flowers), where the adults may be randomly dispersed, and when

methods outside of the traditional netting approach are applied.

The lower detection rate for skippers has almost certainly been a long-standing issue

spanning many decades (albeit usually left unmentioned in species inventories), and

one that becomes a factor of influence 1n unremarkable landscapes where survey has

been infrequent at best. The outcomes, in terms of information loss, are more than

obvious today, particularly in remote regions of Australia. Indeed, the plotted

distributions of encounter-records for many species of butterfly (not just the

Hesperiidae) are noticeably under-representative beyond the coastal and sub-coastal

regions (Dunn & Dunn 1991) — clearly, it has been those floristically richer areas

nearer the coast where most butterfly workers, over the many decades, have focussed

their efforts (Dunn 2010, 2014). By corollary then, the rather limited exploration of

the inland and outback has worsened this knowledge deficiency for the broader

butterfly fauna, as this recent series of reports on distribution has shown by the sheer

number of new locations readily obtained for common and widespread species; thus,

there is indeed much to learn.

Methods

Survey: To gain new records for this paper, I utilised a roadside explorative approach

that involved counts of species (usually as adults) seen at numerous sites along major

inland highways and byroads. The survey methodology described previously (see

Dunn 2015a and earlier papers 1n the series) equally applies to this piece and the

earlier trips it covers. Similarly, the methods used to measure distances and define

locations to precision of within a kilometre of the actual site (as presented in the

Table) have been described before (see Dunn 2013a). In addition, extended discussion

and other recommendations to help describe locations effectively, and to avoid

ambiguity, have been detailed elsewhere (see Dunn 2013b) and that source too will

provide further reading, if required. I used a net for skipper groups (wherever able) to

maximise the number of useful records obtained per site, and to achieve records

hastily as much land coverage needed examination in the time available. In areas that

restricted direct sampling methods, extended watching (where time was available for

PTET Pe De be PE DT be Pe Pe be Pe bg Pe Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 14

this purpose) enabled photography of adults of many species; most of the images

obtained usually included one or more characters enabling the identification of the

adults encountered.

Photography: Over the course of two decades, I have utilised both a ‘point and shoot’

digital camera and digital video-cam (or earlier analogue equivalents) for field

photography in conservation reserves, and their management as fact-gathering tools

was sometimes constrained or enhanced by various predictable and unpredictable

environmental circumstances. For example, some light cloud-cover (obscuring the

sun) usually limits the adult’s flightiness, visual vigilance and intruder-wariness, and

may enable one’s closer approach for higher resolution images, but a trade-off 1s that

lessened flightiness often makes the adults harder to find in the field. In addition, light

cloud cover also softens intruding shadows from foreground foliage or solid objects

(Gncluding shadow from the photographer in late afternoon); otherwise, deeply

shadowed areas may variably obscure some wing patterns or features of the sex-brand

(where applicable). An auto-focussing video-cam (normally capturing 24 frames per

second) has proved more suitable in varied lightings. When close up to the settled

butterfly, and slowly moved across it, the multiple images obtained provide for

ereater pattern coverage over the several seconds of footage achieved. It also enables

views of upper and under-wing surfaces, automatically adjusting the brightness during

variable light exposures inherent amidst vegetation as the adults move about though

dappled light penetrating the canopy. On rare occasions, video sequence has included

several frames of the upper-surfaces when briefly exposed for less than a second just

prior to departure flight in those species reluctant to bask with wings open, often

uniquely securing identification to species in cases that may not be possible on other

evidence in the footage. The trade-off here 1s that the images obtained, when viewed

as individual frames (some of which have been used to illustrate articles in this series)

are noticeably less sharp. These frames are of lower resolution (particularly

noticeable, once cropped to centralise or enlarge the subject) than are those very high

quality images produced by ‘point and shoot’ digital cameras. In contrast, use of the

‘point and shoot’ camera relies on the subject being stationary and moderately sunlit

for several seconds for just one or more sharp images. Sometimes, when the lens 1s

close to the butterfly, one’s minor finger movement whilst pressing the shutter button

to enable ‘auto-focussing’ at first, and image ‘capture’ thereafter, can startle the insect

(potentially to flight). Obviously then, the mixed sampling methods applied at various

sites were sometimes counterproductive for the single purpose of species checklists.

Hence, some suspected new records were lost when adults were startled and, at other

times, some of the routine species (suspected as present based on tentative sightings)

were left unattended to as part of the trade-off for the time devoted to photography.

Identification: As per the previous report (Dunn 2015b), I identified most of the

skippers encountered by in-hand examinations; in many cases I retained the adults

examined as vouchers (52.4%), irrespective of whether they were also photographed

in the field. It follows then, that the percentage of vouchers in the Table is very much

PT PS Pe De be PE De be Pe Pe pe Pe bg Pe Pe bd Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 15

higher than the frequency applicable to the full set of records obtained for all

butterflies on the trips concerned because, firstly, skippers are difficult to identify in

the field and, secondly, because the table is selective data and lists only those records

that represent new locations. Very occasionally too, on the trips involved, some adults

I examined to confirm their identification were subsequently released (Rel.) (0%, this

paper). Where images are included, a superscript links the photos (usually video

frames) to the records concerned. Records that standalone as image-only (meaning

that the insects were not retained as vouchers) are marked as ‘Photo’ (9.5%). The

eight (8) encounters (38.1%) recorded by observation-only are marked as ‘Obs.’; for

six of these, the identifications were certain (Category 1). In each case, I recognised

sufficient characters to achieve that level of confidence. However, two observations

were to a level of ‘almost certain’ (Category 2) as insufficient evidence was obtained

to identify to species the adult or larval stage involved.

Results

The Table lists 21 records of 14 species from 19 new locations (arranged from north

to south), across Australia; all sites fall outside (or if not, then very close to) the

boundaries defined by Braby (2000) for the species concerned and so are new on that

criterion. Those records considered worthy of individual comment due to their

interesting circumstances, whether they be biological or behavioural in focus, include

a superscript indicating a note 1s available. These notes also provide references to

encounters by other workers in the last decade or so, where their published new

locations fall close to those listed in this report.

Table: Nineteen new locations for species of Coeliadinae and Trapezitinae from

beyond their known ranges in Australia

Species/Location State Geocode Date Format

Subfamily Coeliadinae

Hasora discolor

Myrtle Creek crossing, 3km Qld 20°23°S, 148°36°E 03Nov Obs. **!

NNE of Proserpine 2012

Colosseum Creek, about Qld =. 24°25’S, 151°30°E —-:19 Jan Voucher \°°?

15km SW of Miriam Vale, 2002

via the road to Many Peaks

Subfamily Trapezitinae

Trapezites phigalioides

Siding Spring Observatory, NSW 31°17°S, 149°047E 22 Nov — Voucher

W of Coonabarabran 2011 Note 3, Figs. 1 & 2

Trapezites maheta

Carnarvon Gorge, along Qld 25°03’S, 148°13°E 11Nov Obs. ****

walking trail at 25°03’03”S, 2011

148°12°58°E.

BEDS PE DS PF OE be PE DS De Pe be be be pe he bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 16

Trapezites argenteoornatus

Forrest Beach, WSW of WA 33°35’S,115°277E 29Oct Voucher ***?

Capel 2008

Trapezites symmomus

Providence Ponds, at 33.5 Vic 37°55’S, 147°16’E 20Feb Voucher ***°

km by road WSW of 2015

Bairnsdale

Stradbroke West, near Vic 38°16’S, 146°577E 07 Mar Voucher *°*™

Mowatts Rd jct., about 8km 2011

WNW of Stradbroke (via the

Gormandale Road)

Giffard West, adjacent to Vic 38°22°S, 146°59"E 07Mar Obs. °°

highway 2011

Antsynta dominula

Liawenee Canal (road Tas 41°54’S, 146°41’E 13Mar Voucher *°**’

crossing), Liawenee 1996

Neohesperilla xanthomera

St Johns Peak, 14km S of Qld 21°16°S, 148°29°E —s-: 16 Sep Voucher \°*®

Eungella 1993

Toxidia andersoni

Mount Warning, upper NSW 28°24’S, 153°16’E. 01 Dec ~—- Voucher “°°”

slopes (near chain ascent) 1992

Toxidia thyrrhus

Hann River (crossing), near Qld 15°12’S, 143°52’E ~— 09 Jan Obs-c2**™

Hann River Roadhouse, 2002

CYP

Toxidia parvulus

Burbie Canyon walking NSW _ 31°17°S, 148°58°E = 19 Nov _ Photo

track, Warrumbungle 2011 Note 11, Figs 3 & 4

National Park 12Nov Obs. “°° "4

2012

Pincham car park, NSW_ 31°18’S, 149°00°E —-19Nov Obs. “°°

Warrumbungle National 2011

Park

Baldry Crossing, near Main ~——*vViic 38°25°S, [44°58 E 15 Mar Obs.-C2

Ridge, Mornington 2010 Note 12

Peninsula

Hesperilla ornata

Gipsy Point, East Gippsland Vic 37°29°8, 149°41°E 10Dec Obs. °°"

2009 Voucher

13 Dec Note 13a, Fig. 5

2009

BEDS PE DS PF OE be PE De De Pe bg Pe be et Pe bd be bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 17

Hesperilla idothea

Ansons Bay (in Acacia Tas 41°02°S, 148°16h°E = 13Nov Juvenile

Drive) 9007 Note 14, Fig. 6

(voucher)

Hesperilla donnysa

Ansons Bay (in Acacia Tas 41°02’S, 148°16°E 13Nov — Juvenile ****

Drive) 2007 (voucher)

Motasingha trimaculata

At a scenic lookout, about WA 34°26’S, 117°57’7E 23Nov Photo."

4km SW of Talyuberlup, 2008

Stirling Range National Park

Key to Table:

Note 1. The single adult 4. discolor seen (seemingly a territorial male), appeared

localised to a small light gap under the upper canopy, amidst some massive

paperbarks in dense gallery forest. The male was active in mid-afternoon,

sometime between 15:05 and 15:40h (Australian Eastern Standard Time —

AEST) — the duration of survey on that particular visit. Myrtle Creek 1s a rich

site for common butterflies (at suitable times of the year); I have seen some

45 species there across several visits. Only about 15 species were seen on

that November visit in 2012, but 35 minutes was a brief inspection. More

species would have been detected had I visited at an earlier hour (and for a

longer period), but Hasora are less likely to be encountered before mid-

afternoon so visits at differing times of the day are useful to see particular

species.

Note 2. A male H. discolor was encountered in riparian scrub, flying in shade under

the canopy between 12:50 and 14:00h (AEST); it patrolled by flying oval

circuits, some two metres above ground.

Note 3. Two males of T. phigalioides were patrolling in grassy parkland adjacent to

woodland at 1,132 m above sea level (a.s.l), between 12:20 and 13:05h

(Australian Eastern Daylight Time — AEDT; that being 11:20 to 12:05h

AEST). One fed at flowers of Dwarf Sunray, Triptilodiscus pygmaeus

(Asteraceae) (Fig. 2).This upland location 1s disjunct from the main eastern

distribution at this latitude in NSW. Indeed, it is very likely that the species

occurs also in the Warrumbungle National Park, some 30 km farther west,

albeit that neither Smithers and Peters (1972) nor Daniels and Moulds

(1977), who historically surveyed that region, found evidence of it. Both

papers reported the same two species of skipper from the National Park

(although at least five members of the Hesperiidae occur there). The

unexpectedly low skipper diversity reported from each of those published

PEPE PE DS PF Oe be PE De De Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 18

sampling events may stand as further evidence that it 1s easy to miss

members of this group during field surveys (see Introduction).

Note 4. A male and female 7. maheta were actively flying amidst tall Blady Grass

(/mperata cylindrica) in woodland along the National Park gorge walking

trail, during late afternoon (at 16:30h AEST), some 494 m a.s.l. The species

occurs in the “Carnarvon Range” (Braby 2000); that report was almost

certainly based on a specimen in the ANIC, so labelled, and taken in October

1959 by C. Vallis, which Dunn and Dunn (1991) had earlier included on a

point-plotted map for this species (sens. lat.). The contemporaneous record

from the Gorge proper confirms the presence of 7° maheta in the broader

region and usefully provides a fine location, otherwise lacking from this

remote area.

A few historic workers (including N. Geary, W. Barnard and an anonymous

contributor) had specified ‘Carnarvon Range’ on their specimen labels,

dating from the late 1930s to the early 1960s (Dunn & Dunn database, and

miscellaneous examples cited in Peters 1969, Edwards & Kerr 1978, Sibatani

& Grund 1978, Common & Waterhouse 1981, Monteith & Yeates 1988,

Eastwood et al. 2008, etc.). This generalised description of provenance,

vague at best, referred to one or more fine collecting sites, that were,

perhaps, common knowledge among selected collector circles in that era.

However, it appears that contemporary workers are now uncertain as to

actual location(s) intended in that broad area of western central Queensland.

I suspect it may refer to the Mount Moffatt Station area (rather than to the

Carnarvon Gorge proper); the former area might have served as a base in

those days, and may have contained old growth Brigalow areas close by (to

sustain one species so labelled). Atkins (1975) listed some records of his

from the “Carnarvon Ranges” obtained during the early 1970s, but the one or

more locations involved are unrelated to the earlier material by that name,

and refer to the Gorge area (A. Atkins p.c.).

Note 5. Three adults of 7. argenteoornatus were seen perching amidst shore

scrubland in sandy clearings, and many others were perched along the sandy

coastal road, all situated about 500 metres southwest of the ‘beach access’

signage, near the Forrest Beach Road-Coast Road junction. They were active

during brief sunny periods between 13:00 and 14:00h (Australian Western

Daylight Time — AWDT; equating to 12:00 to 13:00h Australian Western

Standard Time — AWST). Valentine and Johnson (2003) earlier reported the

species at Dunsborough, where it occurs commonly at similar latitude, but on

the opposite shore of Geographe Bay; the Forrest Beach record supplements

theirs.

Note 6. Three males of 7. symmomus were taken whilst defending perch sites

associated with Melaleuca flowers at Providence Ponds, at 35 m a.s.l., in

BEES Pe Re be PE he be Pe Pe pe he be Pe Oe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 19

central Gippsland (between 16:10 and 16:40h AEDT). These adults would be

expected, from a geographic perspective, to be variably transitional between

the nominate subspecies in far eastern Victoria and subspecies soma, which

occurs westward from Traralgon (Dunn & Dunn 1991). However based on

the colour tone of, and lesser prominence of the post-median series of bluish-

white spots on the hind-wing underside, all show some allegiance with the

nominate subspecies from eastern Victoria (rather than to populations from

West Gippsland). (6a.). To the southeast, at Stradbroke West, several

females were present near sedges of Lomandra longifolia, which were

erowing in woodland adjacent to the Stradbroke-Gormandale Road, at 107 m

a.s.l. (16:00-16:15h AEDT). Again this area 1s situated between populations

of the nominate subspecies to the east and subspecies soma, to the west.

Adults in the Stradbroke West district would likely be transitional between

these two subspecies, from a geographic perspective. However, based on the

same characters on the hind-wing underside, those few specimens examined

seemed a little closer in appearance to subspecies soma. (6b). A solitary

adult encountered farther south at Giffard West, was seen flying near host

plants in woodland adjacent to the South Gippsland Highway, about 51 m

a.s.l. (between 16:30-16:40h AEDT); it could not be examined because it

evaded capture. Material from Giffard West, when this becomes available for

study, would likely resemble material from Stradbroke West, as the two

locations are not far apart.

The species seems to have remained unrecorded, in museum collections or

undocumented 1n literature, from the intervening area between the subspecies

— Braby (2000) indicated each taxon as disjunct populations on his synoptic

map. Nonetheless, I anticipate that populations of soma and the nominate

subspecies are connected by a series of small (mostly yet to be discovered)

populations in that intervening area of supposed absence. The reason for this

apparent long-standing gap, despite regular butterfly survey in that area by

many workers over many decades last century, 1s curious, but the apparently

sharper cline now presenting suggests a barrier of some form once occurred.

Indeed, the species would appear to be quite rare in the “gap’ and those few

populations recently found in that region (three of which are documented

herein) may be small, localised and sporadically distributed amidst areas of

less suitable habitat. I call for others visiting central Gippsland to seek out

this species — the adults are usually locally abundant (where they occur) and

are conspicuous 1n flight, and thus not hard to find (where present). As a

handy hunting guide, the adults (particularly males) can be much higher in

profile in mid and late afternoons 1n Victoria, whereas at other times of the

day they may go unseen unless feeding at flowers in the mid mornings.

Note 7. The synoptic range-fill map by Braby (2000) for A. dominula in Tasmania

shows an area of absence on the Central Plateau, albeit this 1s from where the

PTET Pe De be Pe De be Pe Pe pe Pe bg Pe Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 20

species has been reported historically (Couchman & Couchman 1977; see

also Dunn 1999 concerning this particular encounter). The record tabled is

outside the range on that argument, and reiterated to draw attention to this

inaccuracy in that contemporary reference on Australian species. Orr and

Kitching (2010) may have rectified this issue (whether intentionally or

inadvertently), but the very small-scale map in that piece, and the lack of

textual comment regarding it, leaves this open for argument’s sake.

Note 8. Two hill-topping males of NV. xanthomera were present on the summit, during

a visit to the Eungella region with Michael Braby. This location represents a

cusp record or is marginally outside the range-fill map by Braby (2000); it is

important in defining the western limits at this latitude in the Burdekin

region of northern Queensland.

Note 9. This record for 7. andersoni 1s to the east of the northern montane section

Note 10.

Note 11.

indicated on the range-fill map by Braby (2000). It first appeared in an

unpublished report on the butterflies of Mt. Warning National Park provided

to New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service in 1995; that internal

report to that state service was later included in Dunn (2006) to increase its

availability. Newland (1999) similarly found the species at or near the

summit. Along the Mt Warning walking trail, the species appeared to be

localised to a small grassy clearing amidst forest near the steep ascent.

A single male skipper was seen conspicuously perched, with wings in

characteristic V-shape, atop of a seed head of a tall grass 1n open woodland

near the river (Sometime between 10:00 and 12:00h AEST — the duration of

survey). I saw the upper wing surface briefly, as I approached, but the adult,

being vigilant and wary in bright sunshine, immediately departed, not to be

seen again. I felt confident that 1t was a male of 7oxidia thyrrhus, short of

capturing it. My field diary listed the observation as Category 2 (judged at

the time of the encounter in 2002), which was no doubt based on the same

(albeit then unwritten) understanding of Franklin et al. (2005: 2), that in such

a case “there might be a reasonable call for a confirmatory voucher

specimen”. This 1s particularly so in this remote part of Australia, where, like

parts of the Northern Territory, the fauna 1s more diverse and less well

known. Nonetheless, the site it selected for its territorial perch and its stance

matched my field recollections of the behaviour of males of the species in

southeastern Queensland and in the Wet Tropics region in the 1980s and

1990s.

Adults of 7. parvulus were abundant near the start of the Burbie Canyon

walking trail in Warrumbungle National Park, at elev. 345 m a.s.l.

(31°16°44"S, 148°58°15”E, accuracy: +/- 100m). They sought nectar at a

Verbena species (Verbenaceae) (see Figs. 3 & 4) during early afternoon,

between 13:45 and 14:00h (AEDT). (11a.) The following year near the third

BEDS PE DS PF DE be PE DS De Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd Pe hg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 21

Note 12.

Note 13.

Note 14.

creek crossing, at elev. 448 m a.s.l. (31°17°02”S, 148°58’°12”E), a single

female was seen to feed at a purple pea flower (Fabaceae) at 11:20h (AEDT).

(11b) In addition, adults were seen nearby, 1n the vicinity of the Pincham car

park, at elev. 500m a.s.l, where they perched on fallen leaves on the ground

in eucalypt open forest, between 16:50 to 17:10h (AEDT). Linda Rogan (p.c.

2011) has also photographed the species in the Spirey Creek area of the park.

A female of 7. parvulus was seen perched (with closed wings) on a bracken

frond in a sandy open area, amidst open forest along a walking trail, between

14:25 and 15:40h (AEDT) — the duration of survey. The underside pattern

including the post median series of brown rings was briefly seen, and I feel

convinced that it was this species and not a worn female of Dispar compacta,

which I had considered in the differential diagnosis at the time; neither was it

Pasma tasmanicus, which its hind-wing underside colour and patterns

readily excluded. My field-diary recorded the observation as an undoubted

sighting, but I have ranked the record cautiously herein as Category 2 (for

the present) as there are no other records from the Mornington Peninsula,

and because the species is very rare near Melbourne, nowadays, and unlikely

to be found on probability. The sandy habitat, however, 1s supportive of the

diagnosis, as 7. parvulus favours such in coastal areas where it occurs.

Again, this encounter stands as a case where reasoning objectively aligns

with the argument of Franklin et al (2005) and their reasonable call for a

voucher for such a record, under the circumstances. I have visited the area

(where it was seen in 2010) a few times since then, searching diligently as

one would, but have encountered no others. I am confident that further

evidence of it will arise in time.

A solitary male H. ornata was seen feeding at flowers of Buddleia, during

sunny weather, between 10:45 and 11:00h (AEDT), at the unofficial

‘Kangaroo viewing area’ (about 100-200 m up the main road from the boat

ramp); (13a) a follow-up visit revealed several adults feeding at flowers of

Buddleia between 10:20 and 10:40h (AEDT). This location represents a cusp

record or 1s marginally outside the range-fill map by Braby (2000); as a

location for the species it 1s likely well known (within some collector circles)

but not documented in literature. David Crosby, who once owned a holiday

house in the village, recorded adults on his property during December and

January 1n various years from 1993 to 1998 (DFC database, in Dunn & Dunn

database) and, Graham Wurtz (p.c. 2014) reported having seen adults (at my

personal site) in Dec. 2014.

An empty pupal shell of H. idothea was found on a young sedge of a Gahnia

sp. prob grandis (Cyperaceae) (a known host plant), sprouting in open forest

remnants in Acacia Drive, opposite no. 75. Its larger size and pale cream

colouration (the live pupa of this species is at first green and later becomes

BEDS Pe RS be PE he be Pe Pe pe Pe bg be Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 22

Note 15.

cream or brown), clearly distinguished it from H. donnysa (also present at

the site), and assisted identification. The location (and breeding evidence)

fills a gap in an area of previously undocumented distribution in the far

northeast of the state (see synoptic map by Braby 2000). (The purpose of the

visit was to search for H. mastersi in that remote region — a very rare species

allegedly in northern Tasmania; the encounter with H. idothea was incidental

but anticipated. )

Three mature (or near mature) larvae and two pupal shells of H. donnysa

(both dark brownish-black in coloration, typical of the species in other parts

of southern Australian) were on a young sedge of a Gahnia sp. prob grandis

(Cyperaceae) (a known host plant), sprouting in open forest remnants

opposite no. 75. The larvae from Ansons Bay (F1g.6) possessed prominent

white longitudinal stripes, quite unlike those larvae of same or similar age

from Victoria (based on personal experience). They were prominently striped

like those from 1.8km ESE of Forrestdale hall, WA (Fig.7) (estimated as

fourth or fifth instars at the time) and Bully Creek crossing (Newell

Highway), Pilliga Scrub, NSW (Fig. 8) (of unstated age in my field notes,

but probably near maturity). All are from populations anciently isolated from

the main coastal range in southeastern Australia. Mature larvae (of

confirmed age) from Arthurs Seat (Fig.10) and 3km SW of Spargo Creek

(near Trentham) (Fig. 11) 1n Victoria are uniformly green, but the larval

head band, which 1s sharply pointed 1n the apical region, 1s very similar to

those from the other locations, except for two examples from inland New

South Wales (Figs 8 & 9). Mature larvae (of confirmed age) from Boonoo

Boonoo, at 28° 53°31”S, 152°07°21”E, elev. 986 m a.s.l. (near Tenterfield, in

the New England region), NSW (Fig. 12), and from an unspecified location

in South Australia (Fig. 13) are each similar to the two examples from

Victoria. The body pattern of the larva from Bumberry Ridge, east of Parkes,

NSW (Fig. 9) (of undetermined age in my field notes, but probably near

maturity) is similar to the mature larvae illustrated from Victoria, the New

England region of NSW, and from South Australia. However, the head of

both larvae from inland New South Wales have the frontal band bluntly

diffuse in the apical region and the lateral band 1s diffusely edged.

The striped body pattern occurs in mature larvae 1n some other species in the

genus, but apparently not in mature larvae of H. donnysa in Victoria (or not

that I have seen), nor usually in those mature larvae from South Australia (R.

Grund p.c. 2015). The striped pattern may be an ancestral feature of the

eroup, one retained from earlier larval instars, 1n some isolated populations

in larvae near or close to maturity. That said, the (presumably mature) larva

sharply illustrated by Field (2013), but which is without location details, 1s

typical of mature examples seen in Victoria. In South Australia, mid-instars

up to and including the fourth have stripes, and “...even the odd 5th instar

PTET Pa RE be PE De be Pe Pe pe he be Pe Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 23

Note 16.

can have stripes 1n its early stages, but later, particularly nearing the pre-pupa

stage the stripes disappear” (R. Grund p.c. 2015) and on maturity, the green

form (probably the apomorphic or derived state) replaces it. Grund remarked,

as well, that there 1s “a non-verified tendency for larvae to be more stripier in

colder areas. We have only looked at different colours of the pupae”. The

apparent retention of juvenile coloration in some older larvae (likely the

pleisiomorphic state) in some populations needs further investigation to

substantiate the rather circumstantial evidence provided at this time

(unfortunately confounded by unconfirmed ages of some of the larvae

photographed). Evidence as to whether the presence or absence of obvious

body stripes (in mature larvae) is partly geographical in origin or simply part

of the broader variation within populations (either way, possibly linked to

locally cool climates) will emerge when workers illustrate more larval

material (of confirmed ages) from various populations.

Of the three supposed donnysa larvae taken at Ansons Bay, one larva trialled

on a garden-planted G. clarkei seemingly refused that foliage; 1t apparently

departed the plant (typical behaviour linked to an unacceptable host) or may

have succumbed to a predator as it could not be found the following morning

(in the artificial taped-shelter constructed for it). Another placed similarly on

a garden G. sieberiana had webbed the (sticky-taped) shelter by the next day

and fed for a lengthy period but was found drowned at the base of the plant

after a severe storm tore open its shelter. The photographed larva, reared

indoors on a potted G. sieberiana, produced an adult on 28 Feb 2008, and

confirmed the species identification as H. donnysa.

Incidentally, the plotted map of this species provided by McQuillan and

Virtue (1994) included a site in northwestern Tasmania that appears situated

at Great Musselroe Bay, to the north of Ansons Bay, and which Braby

(2000) missed during the construction of his range-fill map for this species.

Three aged males of M. trimaculata were seen perching at the lookout

summit during sunny periods between 13:05 and 13:35h AWDT; conditions

were windy at the time, and the perching adults were difficult to approach

and quickly lost from sight on their departure. The sex brand of one male

was visible, and that patiently awaited opportunity enabled its identification

with certainty. Yet, it is assumptive that the two other individuals seen less

closely (during 30 minutes observation time at the site), were of the same

species. The similar VM. dirphia also occurs in Stirling Range National Park

(first taken at Bluff Knoll in 1966 by L.E. Couchman, ANIC), and may be

present at times at this particular lookout as well, but I gained no firm

evidence of it on my passing visit that year. There seem to be no published

reports of M. trimaculata in the Stirling Range (nor of M. dirphia), but I

BEES Pe De be PE De be Pe Pe pe he bg be Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 24

suspect the former is locally common there 1n some seasons and has been

overlooked on account of the inconspicuousness of skippers within the park.

Discussion

For some of the species listed, the new locations link (or partially link) major areas of

occurrence and add to available knowledge, giving insight into a much broader

distribution in places. The two records of Hasora discolor from coastal Queensland

are examples of linkage sites. Similarly, for Trapezites symmomus and Hesperilla

ornata, the scattered new records from eastern Victoria provide evidence of what is

very likely to be (for the former), and what has long been suspected to be (for the

latter — compare synoptic map in Common & Waterhouse 1981) continuous

distributions in that southern state. In other cases, the new information from inland

montane areas indicates patchy occurrences that would likely be biogeographically

disjunct from the main areas of distribution. For some skippers tabled, the extensions

recorded may be minor but each provides evidence of a broader occurrence at a finer

level in the areas concerned. All these new records likely link to an inadequate

knowledge of species’ distributions due, for the most part, to a lack of regular

exploration by insect collectors, both spatially and across seasons. Other explanations,

such as unusual climatic conditions 1n parts of Australia (applicable for some of the

years involved), or human interference (in its varied forms), would seem unlikely for

the skippers species concerned. Finally, each new record adds insight into the

distribution of those species of butterfly listed, particularly for the inland, and helps

fill knowledge gaps evident in their distributions (as based on the range-fill maps by

Braby 2000).

Recommendations for visual data gathering

Because skippers tend to be low profile, inconspicuous in flight, and possess similarly

patterned wings, it 1s best to retain vouchers to ensure that quality information 1s

gathered. Where this is not possible, 1t 1s desirable to provide measures of uncertainty,

if and where required, for any sight-records (that is, where one may have considered a

differential diagnosis because fewer than desired characters were visible). I argued the

case for vouchers for the subfamily Hesperiinae in the previous paper 1n this series

(see Dunn 2015b) and the same concerns apply variably to these two subfamilies as

well. It 1s easy to identify species mistakenly under differing lighting 1n the field, and

photos, although invaluable in the absence of a voucher, may not always assist an

unambiguous identification to species level. Indeed, where identification 1s not

achievable on the evidence gathered, some field encounters might need to be

discarded — an approach actioned by Franklin et al. (2005). They wrote (p.2),

concerning some of their own observations of butterflies 1n the Northern Territory,

“We have excluded records where there might be a reasonable call for a confirmatory

voucher specimen (e.g. many Hesperiidae)’. Others, historically and

contemporaneously, have included dubious records in reports by indicating measures

of uncertainty that apply to particular records. Consider Koch and van Ingen (1969),

as one example among the many writers who have used this approach. They wrote

PTET Pe De be Pe he be Pe be pe Pe bg be Oe bd Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 25

concerning one of their identifications, that, “this is a tentative determination because

only damaged specimens are available” (p.98), albeit that their identification was

mistaken at that time. Nonetheless, their admission promoted transparency and alerted

readers to be wary, but 1n doing so, they also provided information for the future.

Indeed, the actual species involved 1s more than obvious today because of our

improved knowledge of local faunas — distributions that were poorly known in that

era. Alternatively, or even additionally, others may have simply listed records at a

higher classification, sometimes offering several differential diagnoses or none at all.

As an example of a recent piece, Moss and Jenkinson (2014) listed some records

generically, suggesting three possibilities (but none as a probability) for one particular

observation. I (along with many others) have done similarly when documenting

encounters where species identification was unachievable in the field. More often than

not, those records of common species that are cautiously included as ‘almost certain’

or ‘very probable’ (due to confounding factors in the field) may be correct anyway,

and may become acceptable in the future when knowledge of finer distribution and

the species suite at particular sites comes to hand. Such admissions of uncertainty

valuably serve to protect the baseline knowledge from contamination, and future

authors or data compilers can discard those encounter-records identified less reliably

(if they wish to) as part of their data analyses. Where growing evidence suggests

mistaken species diagnoses in historic lists, it is often those records that were weakly

documented (with little circumstantial information included), published vicariously

(secondary information), or where the writers were less than transparent (for records

where measures of doubt may have been associated), that matters of reliability

become an issue for future workers. Even where museum-lodged vouchers are

available across time, some workers (for example, Dunn & Dunn 1991) deliberately

excluded many female specimens of certain groups of skippers because they

considered that the taxonomic methods (then recommended) did not resolve their

identification unambiguously where close species’ ranges overlapped.

Given these complications, it seems reasonable to suppose then that those many

contemporary insect enthusiasts who prefer to use only field observation and/or

photography for fact gathering (rather than handle or retain specimens), may feel

disenchanted over time and so devote increasingly less attention to particular groups.

Any change of focus, because identifications have proved difficult to obtain

vicariously or to personally achieve from photos, will inevitably result in less

information on distribution for neglected groups 1n the longer term. Moreover, of

those who favour the ‘digital sampling trend’ for its ‘conservation cleanliness’ (now

enhanced by high-resolution image-capturing mobile phones in their increasing

ubiquity), and who, as keen “citizen scientists’ enjoy routinely photographing skippers

(as well as other butterflies) will unlikely curtail this predicted imbalance. The

incoming information submitted to on-line databases across future decades will likely

remain skewed on probability, and the lack of prettiness of skippers may not be the

driving factor for this. The main issue appears to be that those who use “point and

BEDS PE DS Pd Oe be PE he pe Pe bs Pe be pe Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 26

shoot’ photography as their stand-alone method of fact gathering need acquire an

extensive knowledge of characters that distinguish each of the closer species

beforehand. That way, they can ensure that those images achieved (whether archived

or placed online) will contain the required information for identification purposes.

This will enable usefulness of their photos to others, and stand as evidence of baseline

and new distribution (where and when applicable), 1n a similar way that specimen

vouchers have served across generations of study to this time. However, I recognise

that not all insect photographers have the keenness or time to gain those specialist

skills, and that many simply enjoy the photographic moment.

Conclusion

As stated in the previous report in this series, 11 would seem that the observation

method, even when supplemented by digital photography — the means commendably

aligned with conservation awareness — without due care and skill might not guarantee

as complete a list for a site visited as does traditional netting and in-hand examination.

That said, handling and retention remains a reasonable call for many of the

Hesperudae and Lycaenidae (see Dunn 1994 p.72, Franklin ef al. 2005 p. 2 (as quoted

above), Dunn & Franklin 2010 p.90, Dunn & Field 2012 p.27, Dunn 2015b, & this

paper), including the retention of vouchers for photographs from these groups where

this is permissible. My argument favouring specimen vouchers has been based on

extensive testing of various methods, both in isolation and in combination over many

years, and 1s not driven by a desire to possess items for a display cabinet, nor linked to

a passion for ‘collecting’ from a bygone era. The traditional method remains the ideal

and easiest sampling process, and it was the means used to obtain many of the new

records listed in this paper (and others in this series), but its applicability 1s dwindling

in light of ever-increasing reservation and legislation.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank David Crosby (Vic.), Linda Rogan (Vic.), and Graham Wurtz (NSW)

for their provision of personal field records to the database, several of which have

been usefully referred to in this report. I also thank Michael Braby (ACT) for inviting

me to help survey at St Johns Peak, west of Mackay, where he was then investigating

its butterfly fauna. Wesley Jenkinson (Qld) and Roger Grund (SA) usefully provided

photos of larvae from the New England Region of NSW and from South Australia,

respectively. Roger also offered insightful commentary on his experience with the

variously aged larval forms of H. donnysa in South Australia. Russell Best (Vic.)

kindly identified the nectar sources mentioned in Notes 3 & 11. Finally, Andrew

Atkins (Qld.) and John T. Moss (Qld.) offered helpful suggestions to improve the

clarity of the manuscript 1n places.

References:

Atkins, A. 1975. Larval foodplants of some Queensland Butterflies. News Bulletin of the

Entomological Society of Queensland 3(7): 117-119.

Braby, M.F. 2000. Butterflies of Australia: their identification, biology and distribution.

CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Vic.

PTET Pe De be PE De be Pe Pd pe he bg Pe Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 27

Common, I.F.B. & Waterhouse, D.F. 1981. Butterflies of Australia. Second Edition. Angus &

Robertson, Melbourne, Vic.

Couchman, L.E. & Couchman, R. 1977. The Butterflies of Tasmania. Zasmanian Year Book, 1977

11: 66-96.

Daniels, G. & Moulds, M.S. 1977. The butterflies of Warrumbungle National Park, New South

Wales. Australian Entomological Magazine 4(3): 49-51.

Dunn, K.L. 1994. Butterflies attracted to Eucalyptus flowers at Nathan, and a species check-list for

Toohey Forest, Queensland. Victorian Entomologist 24(3): 71-75.

Dunn, K.L. 1999. Butterfly watching in Tasmania — Part V. Victorian Entomologist 29(2): 33-39.

Dunn, K.L. 2006. Butterfly checklists for five National Parks in eastern Australia: compiled

unpublished reports sent to state conservation services during the 1990s. Calodema 6: 10-

28 (online at www.calodema.com).

Dunn, K.L. 2010. Overview of the butterfly database: Part 4 — Personal contributions (KLD).

Victorian Entomologist 40(5): 98-109.

Dunn, K.L. 2013a. Field Notes: Gulf Country extensions to the known distribution of the Long-

tailed Pea-blue, Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus 1767) in Queensland (Lepidoptera:

Lycaenidae). Metamorphosis Australia, Magazine of the Butterfly & Other

Invertebrates Club 69: 17-23.

Dunn, K.L. 2013b. Overview of the butterfly database: Part 7 — Descriptions of provenance and

promotion of new trends. Victorian Entomologist 43(1): 13-22.

Dunn, K.L. 2014. Overview of the butterfly database: Part 8 — Counts of sites, as a glimpse into

past exploration. Victorian Entomologist 44(4): 85-89; continued 44(5): 105-108.

Dunn, K.L. 2015a. New distribution records for Nymphalid butterflies (Lepidoptera:

Nymphalidae) in Queensland. Metamorphosis Australia, Magazine of the Butterfly &

Other Invertebrates Club 76: 18-31.

Dunn, K.L. 2015b. New distribution records for Hespertine butterflies (Lepidoptera:

Hesperiidae: Hesperiinae) in Australia. Metamorphosis Australia, Magazine of the

Butterfly & Other Invertebrates Club 77: 17-32.

Dunn, K.L. & Dunn, L.E. 1991. Review of Australian butterflies: Distribution, life history and

taxonomy. Parts 1-4. Melbourne, Australia: Published by the authors.

Dunn, K.L & Field, R.P. 2012. Two new records of skipper butterflies from the Murray Valley

in SE Australia. Victorian Entomologist 42(2): 26-28.

Dunn, K.L & Franklin, D.C. 2010. Exploring the adequacy of representation of butterfly

species’ distributions in a more accessible portion of northern Australia. Northern

Territory Naturalist 22: 88-94.

Eastwood, R., Braby, M.F., Schmidt, D.J., Hughes, JM. 2008. Taxonomy, ecology, genetics

and conservation status of the Pale Imperial Hairstreak (Jalmenus eubulus)

(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): a threatened butterfly from the Brigalow Belt, Australia.

Invertebrate Systematics 22: 407-423.

Edwards, E.D. & Kerr, J.F.R. 1978. A new species of Candalides from eastern Australia and

notes on Candalides hyacinthinus (Semper) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Australian

Entomological Magazine 4(5): 81-90.

Field, R.P. 2013. Butterflies. Identification and life history. Museum of Victoria Publishing,

Melbourne, Vic.

Franklin, D.C., Michael, B., & Mace, M. 2005. New location records for some butterflies of the

Top End and Kimberley regions. Northern Territory Naturalist 18: 1-7.

Koch, L.E. & van Ingen, F.C. 1969. The butterflies of Koolan Island, Western Australia. Western

Australian Naturalist 11(4): 98.

BEES Pe De be PE DT be Pe be pe he be be Pe be Pe bd bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 28

McQuillan, P.B. & Virtue, J. 1994. Butterflies of Tasmania. Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club

Inc. Hobart, Tasmania.

Monteith, G.B. & Yeates, D.K. 1988. The butterflies of Mount Moffatt and Carnarvon National

Parks, Queensland. Oueensland Naturalist 28(5-6): 14-32.

Moss, J.T. & Jenkinson, W.J. 2014. The butterflies of Kroombit Tops and Bulburin National Parks,

Boyne Valley, Central Coastal Queensland. Queensland Naturalist 52(1-3): 32-47.

Murphy, M.J. 2011. Notes on the butterflies of Bruxner Park on the north coast of New South

Wales, Australia. Victorian Naturalist 128(1): 11-17.

Newland, G. 1999. Butterflies of Mount Warning National Park. Victorian Entomologist 29(5).:

84-90.

Orr, A. & Kitching, R. 2010. The butterflies of Australia. Crows Nest, NSW: Jacana Books,

Allen & Unwin.

Peters, J.V. 1969. Notes on the distribution of Australian Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea

(Lepidoptera). Australian Zoologist 15(2): 178-184.

Sibatani, A. & Grund, R.B. 1978. A revision of the Theclinesthes onycha complex

(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). 7Zyo To Ga (Trans. Lep. Soc. Jap.) 29(1): 1-34.

Smithers, C.N. & Peters, J.V. 1972. Butterflies observed in Warrumbungle National Park,

N.S.W. Australian Entomological Magazine 1(1): 11-12.

Valentine, P.S. & Johnson, S.J. 2003. Notes on the distribution and conservation status of

Trapezites atkinsi Williams, Williams & Hay (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Australian

Entomologist 30(2): 87-91.

¥ 7” = EI a

a “2 -

MMM MMMM MMMM MMMM MMMM

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 29

Fig. 5.

. [.phigalioides male under side — Siding Springs, NSW.

. [.phigalioides male upper side — Siding Springs, NSW.

. To.parvulus female under side — Burbie Canyon track, Warrumbungle Nat. Park,NSW.

. To.parvulus female upper side — Burbie Canyon track, Warrumbungle Nat. Park,NSW.

H. ornata male under side — Gipsy Point, Vic.

. H. donnysa mature (or near mature) larva — Ansons Bay, Tas.

. H. donnysa (fourth or fifth instar) larva — 1.8 km ESE of Forrestdale hall, WA.

. H. donnysa mature (or near mature) larva —Billy Creek crossing (Newell Hwy), Pilliga Scrub,NSW.

H. donnysa mature (or near mature) larva — Bumberry Ridge, 25km E of Parkes, NSW.

g. 10. H. donnysa mature larva —Arthurs Seat, Mornington Peninsula, Vic.

wMM MMMM MMM MMM MiNi

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 30

Fig. 11. H. donnysa mature larva — 3km

SW of Spargo Creek, Vic.

Fig. 12. H. donnysa mature larva —

Boonoo Boonoo, near Tenterfield, NSW.

Fig. 13. H. donnysa mature larva —SA

All photos by Kelvyn Dunn except Figs. 12 and 13 (courtesy of W. Jenkinson &

R. Grund, respectively).

ee i i ee

Indigo Flash (Rapala varuna): what is it with their caterpillars? —

Helen Schwencke

Ever since I first saw the unusual caterpillars of the Indigo Flash back in the mid-

1990s, ve been checking every known and related host plant I come across to find

more of them. The first record of Millaa Millaa (E/aeagnus triflora) as a host plant

was one that was planted in my West End garden as a bush food plant. At the time

about five or six caterpillars of varying sizes were happily munching their way

through the flower buds before moving onto leaves in later instars.

We collected the caterpillars and raised them inside. Sadly we found that those which

pupated early disappeared from inside the container. This mystery was solved when

two half eaten pupae were found in the container — carnivory by the remaining

caterpillars. The outcome of this caterpillar raising exercise was one male Indigo

Flash whose photo was used for our book Create More Butterflies.

Despite regularly searching the plant over the following years, I found no further

caterpillars on it. ’ve since found one caterpillar on the flowers of a Tuckeroo

(Cupaniopsis anacardioides) from Woodfordia (the site of the Woodford Folk

Festival) in 2005.

PTET PERE be Pe Re bd PE RT be Pe De be Pe be bd Pe hg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 31

So you may imagine my delight, in May

this year, when I found a 3rd or 4th instar

caterpillar at Woodfordia. It was eating

the flowers of an Acacia maidenii.

Scouring the shrub revealed it to be the

only one there.

- To finda supply of food I searched for

other Acacia maidenii shrubs around

Brisbane, locating some at a lagoon at

Sandgate. No other A. maidenii had any

further Indigo Flash caterpillars. The

caterpillar was disinterested in any other

Acacia flowers I offered it.

After 4 weeks of my efforts the caterpillar

_ pupated, oozing some reddish fluid while

doing so. At time of writing the chrysalis

has turned dark and, sadly, looks none too

alive. Still I wait in hope.

I’m interested in other people’s

experience with this species. Have you

raised them from caterpillars’?

My hypothesis is that this butterfly lays only one or a small number of eggs on a

particular plant. It 1s already listed for 13 plants in the Butterfly Host Plants list, with

some others mentioned by Braby. If this is the case it may be a useful strategy for

survival as it would be hard for a predator to find a meal of them on any one plant.

Can you tell me more’?

i i i i i i ie ie

In issue (#17) June 2000 of the BOIC Newsletter Graham McDonald began a 4 part

series of “Gardening for Butterflies”. As the majority of our members would not have

seen this series, and following Frank Jordan’s recent Butterfly Gardening days, we

thought it pertinent to repeat the article.

PART 1 - GARDENING FOR BUTTERFLIES

Introduction

The flora and dependent fauna of South-east Queensland are suffering a grave crisis.

Entire ecosystems are dying by the process of a thousand cuts, so we bystanders

hardly notice the changes until it is too late to halt (or reverse) them.

Generally speaking, our native plants (over 400 of which are butterfly host species)

are being replaced by exotic cultivars from overseas. Many of these are not utilised in

any way by our local fauna which has come to co-evolve alongside the native plants

which are critical for their very survival.

BEDS PE DE De PE PS Pe Re be Pe De be Oe Pe Pe be bd Pd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 32

Butterflies and other insects form the basis of a complex web of life which can

continue in a simplified form 1f a few of its links are broken, but will ultimately

collapse, bringing us down with it, especially if a majority of links are severed.

To preserve our natural heritage, we must select those indigenous native plants which

form the basis of our local food chains and grow them in our gardens, parks and

degraded reserves.

Most people are probably beginning to tire of the lack of uniformity and sterile nature

of exotics, not to mention their high maintenance and dependence on water, fertilisers

and pesticides. Soon there will be a move away from these plants towards the local

species which after all are interesting, ornamental and perfectly adapted to the local

conditions of soil and climate of the area.

Many people enjoy watching butterflies visit their gardens, 1f only for a brief fly-

through, but do not know how to keep them there, or set up a breeding colony of

many species of these spectacular insects.

They do not appreciate the link between a butterfly and a native plant. Some people

want to have perfect plants as well as butterflies — a contradiction 1n terms.

We have to become better educated, more tolerant of occasionally chewed plants and

appreciative of the virtues of our indigenous plants and not just pass them by as

another piece of untidy scrappy bush to be cleared out and replaced by some ‘prettier’

plant from another region.

Getting Started

The first move is to buy a block of land or join a bushcare group to work on a reserve

or park. You then have some ownership over what happens to the garden / bushland.

Secondly, carry out some background research into which butterflies you are likely to

attract in your area. Some species are very local and do not fly very far, (e.g. White-

banded Plane). Others can migrate or fly some kilometres to find larval host plants,

(e.g. Richmond Birdwing).

Thirdly, in your local area track down those plant species which are used by the local

butterflies as larval food plants and adult nectar plants. (Many butterfly books contain

such information.)

Finally, select those species of plants which are suited to your garden. You will have

to consider the following points:

(a) The ultimate size of the plants, e.g. a large tree is unsuited to a small garden.

(b) The soil type preferred by the plant. Your soil can be improved in drainage by

raising the beds or altered by the addition of sand, compost, lime etc.

often or allowed to seed freely in the garden.

(d) The sun / shade aspect of your garden, e.g. 1f you have a rainforest garden

established, you will not be able to grow sun-loving annuals. If your garden 1s mainly

BEDS PE DS OE bs PE DT De Re be Pe be pe Pe bd be bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 33

in full sun you will have more choices of plant selection. Most gardens have many

microclimates so a given plant can be slotted into a preferred position.

(e) The availability of the plants. You may have to visit specialist nurseries as most

nurseries do not stock the desired species.

You now have the basics for butterfly gardening and can

look forward to attracting butterflies within weeks of

planting your host plants.

Photo

Jenny Thynne

Example - We planted Hygrophila angustifolia at our

Hinterland Regional Park on a moist depression and only

a few weeks later we witnessed the Tiny Grass Blue

(Zizula hylax attenuata) flying around the plants.

OK OK FS FS OK OK OK OK OK OK

- .

i ms

. rm .. .

& . . | - : |

- ; it

; : ”

> ed J *

- - ; / e

: : . |

- \ 4

, - X\ :

x . a . ;

Nel lb

| a

Tortoise-shelled Ladybird (Harmonia Newly emerged Common Spotted Ladybird

testudinaria) Photo Jenny Thynne (Harmonia conformis) Photo Jenny Thynne

Transverse Ladybird (Coccinella Netty Ladybird (Harmonia testudinaria)

transversalis) Photo Louise Sorensen Photo Russel Denton

BEDS Pe OE DT be PE DT be be Pe bd be Re be Pe be bd bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 34

Orange-spotted Ladybirds (Orcus australasiae) Steelblue Ladybird (Halmus chalybeus)

Photo Russel Denton Photo Russel Denton

Striped Ladybird (Micraspis frenata) 28 spotted Ladybird (Epilachna

Photo Russel Denton vigintioctopunctata) Photo Erica Siegel

+ _* *

* hae a ae

Variable Ladybird (Coelophora inaequalis) Variable Ladybirds (Coelophora inaequalis)

Photo Erica Siegel Photo Erica Siegel

is to Oo Oo Co to Oo Oo Oo Oo to to Ga wo to oo to to CU

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 35

—

Variable Ladybird (Coelophora inaequalis) Yellow Shouldered Ladybird (Apolinus

Photo Erica Siegel lividigaster) Photo Jenny Thynne

Fungus-eating Ladybird (///eis galbula) Larva of the Fungus-eating Ladybird

Photo Erica Siegel Photo Helen Schwencke

Adult and pupae of the Fungus-eating Ladybird Larva of Variable Ladybird with aphids

Photo Helen Schwencke Photo Jenny Thynne

TA ATATATATACATATALACAT ASAT ASAT AAT AL

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 36

IN THE GARDEN

I was very excited to find this Spiny

Leat Insect ( Extatosoma tiaratum) that

hatched from the eggs I got from the club

in July last year.

Jill Fechner Photo Jill Fechner

i i ie ie ee

Pale Ciliated Blue (Anthene

lycaenoides) — Amelia Pasieczny

Earlier this year Helen (Schwencke) and I

were raising and feeding lots of

caterpillars to better document and

photograph their respective life-cycles. In

our garden and around West End were numerous Blue Tigers (7irumala hamata),

Common Crows (Euploea core), Evening Browns (Melanitis leda), Yellow and

Lemon Migrants (Catopsilia gorgophone and C. pomona).

While collecting fresh food, I came across a mysterious chrysalis. It was most likely a

Small Dusky Blue (Candalides erinus) or a Blotched Dusky-blue (Candalides acasta)

(since the butterfly didn’t emerge properly the id could not be confirmed).

The chrysalis was found by chance on some Corky Milk-vine (Secamone elliptica)

which was in a tangle of Senna gaudichaudii, Corky Passion vine (Passiflora

suberosa), Slender Grape (Cayratia clematidea) and Plumbago zeylanica, with

Dodder (Cassytha pubescens) growing through and over other plants. This made it

hard to find more caterpillars to complete observing and photographing their life-

cycle.

While I was searching for fresh Senna growth that didn’t have any new Yellow

Migrant eggs or caterpillars, by this point in the season we had raised more than a

dozen, I spotted an unknown little green caterpillar on the Senna’s flower buds, the

attending ants having given it away.

After raising a few to adulthood, it seemed like we had a Pale Ciliated Blue. It took

us a while to settle on that identification as they were so far out of their recorded

range (according to Michael Braby’s “The Complete Field Guide to Butterflies of

Australia’). We also found evidence of them on some of the other recorded host

plants growing in West End. Their presence in Brisbane had been noted earlier in the

year by Russell Mayo in “Interesting new locations for Anthene lycaenoides

BEES Pe DS be PE De be Pe be pe he bg Pe Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 37

godeffroyi (Semper) 1n Southern Queensland” in Entomological Society of

Queensland News Bulletin, Volume 42, Issue 10, February 2015 p. 189.

I caught the butterfly emerging from the chrysalis.

To see the video visit: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=mCxeRuO6lhY

Images with this article: egg, larva, pupa, adults: female open wings (slightly

eee) male open wings. Butterflies are alive though anaesethised.

Eemale >

Photos Amelia Pasieczny

YOU ASKED

Caterpillars feeding on Sundew: Droseraceae — Harold McQueen and

Don Herbison-Evans

We would like to report the finding in April 2015 of two caterpillar species that have

been found feeding on Sundew (probably Drosera burmannii, Droseraceae) at North

Maclean, Queensland.

MMMM MMW MMMM i

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 38

Figure one shows a small smooth pale brown caterpillar with some sparse white hairs.

The caterpillar has a brown head, and an abdomen with several darker nodules on the

back of each segment, and three faint greenish dorso-lateral lines. Its length is about

0.5 cm. It is possibly a Plume Moth larva, perhaps a Buckleria species in

Pterophoridae. Several species in this genus have been found feeding on Droseraceae

in America, Europe and Asia (Matthews, 2009).

Figure two shows a dark brown caterpillar in a case, which has a length of about 2

cm. The case is cylindrical, tapering slightly toward the head end. The case appears to

be entirely covered 1n fine particles of vegetation.

Figure three shows a close-up of the head

and thorax of this caterpillar. The thorax

seems to show two flat plates, one each

side.

Is this caterpillar a species of Case Moth

in Psychidae?

= ..6%%) Sundews are renowned for using their

Bee ee. leaves to catch and eat insects. It is

interesting that these two species of

Lepidoptera seem to encounter no

problems in feeding on the leaves.

S “ay RAS ~~ Photos Don Herbison-Evans

Reference:

Matthews, Debbie L.The Sundew Plume Moth Buckleria parvulus (Barnes and Lindsey)

(Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae), Southern Lepidopterists' News, Volume 31, Number 2

(2009), Page74. http://www.plumemoth.com/Buckleria.pdf

sk ie 2 ok aK 2k 2k ok ok 2K

The Case of Two Naked Cases (Psychidae : Lepidoptera) —

Don Herbison-Evans and Peter Hendry

Many of the larvae of the moth family Psychidae live 1n a portable case or bag. Some

of our readers may be familiar with the species in this family, many of which ornate

their shelters with bits of twigs or leaves. Currently, there is thought to be one species

which leaves its shelter devoid of any ornamentation. In the past three such species

appear to have been described 1n the literature: Thyridopteryx nigrescens Doubleday,

1845, (now Hyalarcta nigrescens) Oiketicus herrichii Westwood 1855, and Hyalarcta

ptiloclada Meyrick & Lower 1907. Today all three species are regarded as one

species, Hyalarcta nigrescens.

The case of the caterpillar of H. nigrescens was originally described by Edward

Doubleday simply as “similar in form and structure to that of its American congener,

the ephemeraeformis Steph.”

BEDS PE DE De PE be a Re be Pe be be Oe bd pe be bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 39

Presumably, he is referring to Sphinx ephemeraeformis Haworth 1803, which was

placed in Thyridopteryx by Stephens 1n 1835. However, the caterpillar of

Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis covers its bag with bits of leaves and twigs. So it 1s

not clear that it 1s a species with a naked larval case.

The case of the caterpillar of O. herrichii was described by John Westwood as

“leather-like case destitute of twigs or leaves", and illustrated 1n his drawing as indeed

bereft of decoration, but having a series of ribs.

Edward Meyrick and Oswald B. Lower, in their 1907 Revision of the Australian

Psychidae, synonomised H. nigrescens Doubleday 1845 and O. herrichii Westwood

1855, and described the case of this single species, H. nigrescens, as follows;

“30-38 mm. in length, 30 mm. in circumference at greatest breadth ; greyish-

ochreous, minutely spotted with blackish; cylindrical, moderately smooth, not

ornamented with leaves or twigs, tapering at both ends, lower end more elongate and

narrow. Surface marked with seven longitudinal ridges, by their projections forming

concavities between the ridges, which gives a transverse section the appearance of a

heptagon with concave sides. The case is fixed by its upper end to the food-plant by a

strong, short, thick appendage, which is sometimes looped around the twig to which it

is attached”.

They also noted the larva feed on Eucalyptus. It 1s interesting to note that both forms

of attachment are illustrated in Don’s photos.

Meyrick and Lower also described and named Ayalarcta ptiloclada, but noted that the

case and larva were unknown. It too 1s now regarded a synonym of A. nigrescens.

There are two common

sorts of casemoth

caterpillars with naked

cases found in Australia,

both of which feed on

Eucalyptus, and have

cases that can grow to a

length of about 4 cm. One

has aribbed case, and one

has a smooth case.

The lead author only

succeeded in getting an

adult from one of these:

one male from the ribbed

case illustrated here. He

is tempted to suggest that

there are two distinct

PTET PERE Pe PE De be Pe be pe Re be be Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 40

Australian Psychidae species with naked cases, one with ribs and one without. But,

maybe they are the same species and the females have unribbed cases, or maybe the

caterpillars just randomly rib or do not rib their cases. We have not managed to rear

enough specimens successfully to decide this.

A confusing factor in all this 1s the fact that several web sites refer to Hyalarcta

nigrescens as the ribbed case moth and Oiketicus herrichii as the smooth case moth.

As stated above Westwood;s drawings showed O. herrichii with ribs and both species

are now considered to be one, Hyalarcta nigrescens. So I guess the real question 1s

what is in the smooth case.

The distribution of Hyalarcta nigrescens 1s coastal regions from S.E. Queensland

through New South Wales, Victoria and into South Australia.

To help us solve this mystery can you please contact the editor 1f you have raised any

larva through to adult from these types of naked cases. If you do find any of these

cases and try to breed the larva through, record as much information as you can, take

photos and above all keep specimens of both the cases and adult moth, for without

them a positive identification cannot be made and more so if a new species needs to

be described.

Photos Don Herbison-Evans

REPORTS

Report on moth day at Peter’s — Peter Hendry

On Saturday, 22" August 2015, 10 members and guests arrived throughout the

afternoon to listen to my talk and partake

of a barbecue and light trap. I am grateful

for those who put up with my stumbling

over scientific names during my talk on

the history of the Anthelidae. There were

some interesting specimens that turned up

and caused problems trying to place

them. One of interest was a specimen

from Wes Jenkinson which, at the time,

we were inclined to treat as some sort of

aberration of Anthela excellans. |

contacted Ted Edwards who kindly

replied with the following;

“Photo 2 (Wes's from Upper Lockyer Valley) is interesting. It seems related to

Anthela excellens but lacks the grey head and does not seem to vary at all. We have a

short series of males but the female is unknown. All the specimens I know of come

from the upper Lockyer Valley where Ilan Common collected it occasionally. ”

BEDS PE RE Pe PE he be PE Pe pe he bg be Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 41

Wes’s Anthela species — Photo Wesley Jenkinson

So possibly it’s a rare species but unnamed. I’m sure everyone enjoyed the meal and

company. The light trap was fairly well attended by several species enabling Graham

McDonald to increase his photo portfolio.

I would like to thank all those who attended and made my efforts worthwhile and a

special thanks to my wife Bev who went to a lot of trouble to put on a magnificent

spread.

se deve de ve de ve sk desk

An Introduction to Butterfly Gardening — Alisha Steward

“, — ~

On Saturday. the 24th of October 2015 a

handful of keen BOIC members met up at

the Jane Street Community Garden, West

End, to learn about butterfly gardening.

The afternoon was hosted by the

enthusiastic Frank Jordan, co-author of

"Create More Butterflies". Frank talked

about the importance of butterfly host

plants ahd brought along re pite pots Our youngest BOIC member, Stanley, looking

plants to show us (even giving away some fot caterpillurs:on w Paper Daisy.

plants to lucky members!). The plants were Stanley attends all of our meetings.

accompanied by laminated information Photos Alisha Steward

sheets to teach us about which butterfly

species they attract. Frank made the distinction between butterfly host plants that are

food for larvae, and butterfly attracting plants that supply nectar to the adults. We then

went for a wander around the community garden to look at native and exotic plants

that butterflies use. The afternoon was overcast with the odd sprinkle of rain, and as a

result only a few butterflies were seen on the wing. Several larvae were encountered,

however. Frank thoroughly answered the questions that our members had for him, and

he was also well-equipped with a selection of books that members could refer to.

BE PS Pa RE Pe PE De be Pe be pe he bg Pe Pe be Pe bd pg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 42

BUTTERFLY AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES CLUB PROGRAMME

Macro Photography Field Day at Mt. Cotton with Erica Siegel

Learn techniques for capturing the beauty and secret lives and identities of the many

insects that call our gardens and bushland home.

When: Saturday 30" January 2016. Gather at 8am for an 8.30am start, finish

at 11.30am, to be followed by refreshments by the creek

To Bring: Camera and macro lens, lunch or food to share, chair, water bottle — tea

making facilities available.

Wear: Covered shoes, hat/sunscreen,

RSVP: Bookings are essential as places are limited. Reply before 23" January.

Phone Lois on 3206 6229 for bookings and direction to location.

Planning and General Meeting

What: Our planning meetings are informative and interesting. As well as

planning our activities we share lots of information. Following the meeting,

and a lunch break, Russel Denton will lead us through part of the Boondall

Wetlands. We are likely to encounter many invertebrates including lots of

butterflies, Leaf beetles, Ladybird beetles and spiders. All members are

welcome as this activity 1s also a general meeting of members.

When: Saturday 13" February, 2016, 10am

Where: Sandgate Town Hall, corner of Cliff and Seymour Streets, Sandgate.

Bring: Your own cup as crockery and cutlery are not available at this venue, your

lunch, sun protection and probably mosquito repellent!

RSVP: Email secretary@boic.info

Editorial continued from page 3 —

Thank you to all who have contributed to our magazine this year. Please continue to

share. We value each and every piece of information we receive and it gives us great

pleasure to pass it on to our eager members. Observations of our natural world are

very important, but it is the sharing of those observations, 1n word and image, that

makes all the difference.

Planning is underway for excursions in 2016 so if you have a fabulous spot in your

area for an outing please let us know.

The committee wishes all our members a safe and joyous holiday season and very

best wishes for the New Year.

Kind regards

Jill Fechner — BOIC Secretary

BEDS PE DS PF OE be PE DT De Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd be bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 43

DISCLAIMER

The magazine seeks to be as scientifically accurate as possible but the views, opinions

and observations expressed are those of the authors. The magazine is a platform for

people, both amateur and professional, to express their views and observations about

invertebrates. These are not necessarily those of the BOIC. The manuscripts are

submitted for comment to entomologists or people working 1n the area of the topic

being discussed. If inaccuracies have inadvertently occurred and are brought to our

attention we will seek to correct them in future editions. The Editor reserves the right

to refuse to print any matter which is unsuitable, inappropriate or objectionable and to

make nomenclature changes as appropriate.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Producing this magazine is done with the efforts of:

e Those members who have sent in letters and articles

e Lois Hughes who provided the cover painting

e Daphne Bowden who works on layout, production and distribution

e John Moss, Andrew Atkins, Martyn Robinson, Anne Dollin and Ross Kendall for

scientific referencing and proof reading of various articles in this issue of the

magazine

ARE YOU A MEMBER’?

Please check your mailing label for the date your membership is due for renewal. If

your membership is due, please renew as soon as possible. Membership fees are

$30.00 for individuals, schools and organizations. If you wish to pay

electronically, the following information will assist you: BSB: 484-799, Account No:

001227191, Account name: BOIC, Bank: Suncorp, Reference: your membership

number and surname e.g. 234 Roberts.

Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club Inc.

PO Box 2113

RUNCORN Q. 4113

Next event — Macro Photography Field Day at Mt. Cotton with Erica Siegel

— 30" January, 2016 — see programme for details

BEDS PE DS PF OE be PE DT De Re be Pe be pe Pe bd be bd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #79 — Page 44