PLANNING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 2015

President: Marie-Louise Johnson 0422 970 184

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

Red Lacewing (Cethosia cydippe) on Adenia vine — painting by Elaine Allison

BEDS PE PS PE DS Pe De De Pe be Pe Pe Pe Oe pe Pe bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 2

FROM THE PRESIDENT

I would like to start by thanking those who have contributed articles for the Magazine

this quarter. Once again there is a delightful diversity of material which I’m sure the

readers will enjoy. To those who have contributed “keep them coming” and to those

who think they would like to write something please remember you are most welcome

no matter how big or small your submission.

Working on the Magazine is a group effort but I particularly want to thank the Editor

Daphne Bowden who works many long hours behind the scenes to pull everything

together into the final product you receive.

In addition to Daphne’s hard work, the club committee has been beavering away with

the successful completion of the display and activities at Redlands IndigiScapes

Centre 1n early June. As well as displaying educational and craft material on all things

entomological, the club introduced book readings and colouring in of insect pictures

for the children attending on the day. Special thanks to Dawn Franzmann and Jill

Fechner for their book reading skills. The children loved it! Additionally thanks to

Bernard Franzmann for helping out on the day.

This addition of the magazine introduces a Logo competition which we hope will

attract those of you who are budding artists and designers. We also have a few

exciting competitions 1n the pipeline so watch this space for those!

Finally we are putting together a calendar of activities for the next twelve months to

ensure we have lots of interesting activities for members to attend. Any ideas and

contacts for leading activities are most welcome. Our next planning meeting 1s at

Jacobs Well with an activity planned for afterwards so please come along if you can.

The details are in this edition.

Happy reading Marie-Louise

The Red Lacewing butterfly (Cethosia CVAIppe) ....cccccccccccssecccssccecenscccasececasecceueneceeaenes 4

WS IAL WOT GOTT IVIOTINS se. ssa sets qpaee send snze aeene Sacaue condo ice'lbenn duane eaclonxe.a bins dome So SEG ea Tacs ws Esa 1]

Life history notes on the Brown Ringlet, Hypocysta metirius (Butler, 1875) ............ 16

The history of the Australian Anthelidae and notes on separating out some species .. 18

ING GIN OC TEICAG ANE hr SAL Cee ans 2 fos lenatarwt cracesuatas tawterncsaumeceraawhepncntaens awit ames) peureayvenianainenuran 32

Book Review-‘ Butterflies of Coastal SEQ. An Identification Guide by Trevor Ford’ 32

Report - Lammermoor Beach - Butterfly, and Tree Planting, morning....................... 35

PGi TIS CHARON, © 5.5 25sbocxehens acne deine satianunt ce nated sae an teens Nahe tev ese nantes eae Aewhca naa neeeat Neen aaa eeINaeS 37

Club Notices:— 026“ COmpetiiiOns., « aciadsncecleesshecicasonseetertegehsadoneenersademteancenelteraaee’ 38

Insect Excursion Leaders Wanted...............cccsssccccsssececessececeeseeceseeeeeess 39

1B) 1K GN 6a) 0124 62 10110 LO A Oe Re PRE Lat Pte SUR BLO ete URE Stan OE eT A 39

BEDS PE DS PE DS PDE pe Pe be Pe Pe Pe he pe Pe bd be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 3

CREATURE FEATURE

The Red Lacewing butterfly (Cethosia cydippe) — Garry Sankowsky

This is one of Australia’s most beautiful butterflies and I must admit it is my

favourite. It is strictly tropical, occurring from Torres Strait to about Townsville, in

rainforest where its host plants grow.

The Red Lacewing 1s rarely seen

above 400 m altitude and

unfortunately it is a rare visitor to

our garden on the Atherton

Tableland. Like many butterflies,

at times it ranges 50 km or more

from its usual breeding areas

which brings it on to the Atherton

Tablelands and to Townsville. No

host plants grow close to

Townsville but Adenia

heterophylla 1s common on the

Cardwell Range and at Crystal

Creek (north of Townsville).

It is unfortunate that the last revision of Adenia/Hollrungia lumped these species

together, sinking the Hol/rungia genus. I still consider them to be two separate genera

and so do the butterflies. The Red Lacewing lays on Adenia and Hollrungia, the Orange

Lacewing lays on Adenia and Passiflora, refusing to take any interest in Hollrungia.

The females almost always lay their

. eggs along the stem of the host

- plant, 10 - 20 cm back from the

end, in batches of 50 or more. Adenia

— .

pa eee ™

| | © s¢6 .

aT ss 8 ° vines usually hang down and then

a curl up at the tip, the eggs being

mostly laid on the curve. I am

referring to the wild situation, 1n captivity they will lay anywhere on the vine.

Similar to White Nymph larvae, the small

caterpillars line up and systematically chew down

a leaf. The ones in the image on the right are on

Passiflora (Hollrungia) aurantoides. These are about

to moult, even if the group 1s somewhat spread out

while feeding they always group tightly when they

are preparing to moult.

——. roel | *. +

F mh

_ -_

4 e

—

WM WM MMMM MMM MM MMM

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 4

From the third instar onwards the larvae take

on the classic warning colours of toxic

species. The group on the left are about to

moult and enter the final instar.

The group below are moulting for the last

time.

When it comes time to pupate the larvae usually spread

out and may end up ten or twenty metres from where

they last fed. Like many vine feeding species their

pupae are usually not made on the host plant.

The pupae are well camouflaged, looking like some dead

debris amongst the foliage.

Male and female butterflies are fairly similar, the males

being a more vivid red. When it comes to mating, the

males are quite aggressive, similar to a Wanderer as

shown in the image below.

Ps bey

es » >

a -

ie | i | ,

: ‘ » . \ ' ": x ce

im ek Aad Oe OS

~~ hs ww VA . 4

- ,. a

' — a

MMMM MMMM

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 5

This is a very spectacular butterfly

when seen flying in the bright tropical

sun. They usually rest with their wings

open so the bright red is clearly visible.

The wild population is extremely

dynamic, fluctuating between very

common to extremely hard to find

from year to year. There are a few

localities in the Wet Tropics

where they can almost always be

found.

The Red Lacewing host plants

I mentioned earlier about Hollrungia being lumped in with Passiflora but Adenia 1s

even worse. The official names are Adenia heterophylla subsp. australis and Adenia

heterophylla subsp. heterophylla. This is complete nonsense, they are totally separate

species. The leaves of neither species are heterophyllus (different shaped on one

plant) so I have no idea how the name came about. The Queensland Herbarium has all

the species on Cape York Peninsula as Adenia heterophylla subsp. australis, with subsp.

heterophylla starting in the Wet Tropics. I have never seen subsp. australis on Cape

York, only the so-called subsp. heterophylla. I have these plants growing and there 1s no

doubt what species they are. The main difference between the Adentas on the Cape

and in the Wet Tropics is the genes; the Cape York ones are about ten times more hardy,

enabling them to survive cold and dry much more easily than the ones from the Wet

Tropics. It 1s possible that subsp. australis 1s in Torres Strait as Dennis Bell reported

seeing Adenia on Thursday Island that had a different leaf from the normal one. For the

rest of the article I will be referring to these as Adenia heterophylla and Adenia

australis.

Adenia australis flower, buds and green fruit

BEDS REDS PF RE Ps PE DS De Re be Pe be De Pe bd Pe he

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 6

Adenia australis — fruit Adenia australis — foliage

Adenia australis occurs from Groote Island around to almost Broome, with

surprisingly not large gaps in between so it 1s intriguing why the Orange Lacewing 1s

not more widespread. It is accepted by the Red Lacewing in captivity but 1n my opinion

does not oe saa the range of the secon

rine Stee Ns ‘

fom a

a, Hg ee

fesse

ae a > LN ,

This 1s Adenia australis typical habitat in Western Australia (near Kununurra) and 1n

the centre is a huge Adenia vine. Adenia australis is a deciduous vine that develops a

huge tuber, most of which sits on top of the ground. It usually remains leafless from

about June till the first storms arrive in October or November, then it sends up fresh

stems that rocket up through the trees like “Jack’s Beanstalk’. It is very common 1n

Western Australia but no Orange Lacewings have been found there. I imagine they

would once have been there but were wiped out in one of the ice ages.

BEDS PE DT Pe PE DT be Oe be Pe he be Pe Pe be Pe bd bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 7

Adenia heterophylla 1s found from

Cape York down to just north of

Townsville. Around Bamaga it 1s

quite common and on the Peninsula

it extends down to Massy Creek on

Silver Plains. The southern population

starts atabout Mt Webb (north

of Cooktown) and then down to

Crystal Creek, north of

Townsville. It occurs only at very low

altitudes, on the Kuranda Range

where it cuts out less than half way

up.

The plants from the northern

population are very hardy and are the

only ones that will grow successfully

in Brisbane.

BEDS PE DE be EDT be Oe be be Be bg be he be Pe bd bd?

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 8

Passiflora (Hollrungia) aurantioides 1s a very large vine that in Australia is

restricted to the very wet lowlands from about Bellenden Ker to Bingle Bay. No

fruit have ever been collected as yet. In spite of the fact that it has a very limited

range it 1s able to withstand the winter 1n our garden without any problems.

The new growth is very soft and relished by both the Red Lacewings and the

Cruisers. The plant was originally found in Papua New Guinea.

OE De Pe De Pe be Pe be Pe he be De Pe be Pe he be Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 9

Photos Garry Sankowsky

Passiflora (Hollrungia) kuranda ranges

from about Bloomfield to the Clohesy River

(south of Kuranda) in both lowland and

upland rainforest. It 1s an extremely large

vine that develops stems at least as thick as

15 cm and spreads out across the canopy of

the rainforest.

The large green fruit do not change colour

when mature, nor do they split open. They

simply drop to the ground and are opened by

/ various small animals. I have not seen a bird

eating the fruit but they do pop up 1n various

parts of our garden.

It was initially thought that there were

separate male and female plants but with

age all my plants now produce fruit. Initially

they only had male flowers.

This vine is used by both the Red Lacewings

and the Cruisers.

OE Dd DE DS PE DE De DE De Pe be Pe be Pe Pe be be bd bd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 10

ITEMS OF INTEREST

Weird and Wonderful Moths — Graham McDonald

Introduction

The world of very small and unusual moths often goes unnoticed. Their interesting

colours, shapes and patterns only become apparent after taking their images using a

good macro lens and DSLR camera. Knowing where to look for them, how to attract

them and getting to know their habits and distribution, all help to make this pastime

very rewarding. All the images shown here were taken using a hand-held Canon

450D DSLR camera and Canon macro f2.8 100 mm lens or a Tamron SP 60 mm f2

macro lens. All moths were live unpinned specimens with a few in their natural

habitat.

Fig. | Moerarchis australasiella

Family: Tineidae (Clothes Moths)

This boldly patterned moth feeds on the dead trunks of grass trees (Xanthorrhoea

spp). Most of the Tineidae family are small and drably coloured, with some ten

species feeding on wool, feathers etc.

The common component of all of the larval food materials seems to be the presence

of some kind of fungus.

This moth was captured in moist coastal heath on sand where it was flying close to

Xanthorrhoea fulva. Another moth of the same species was photographed in dry

eucalypt forest where it was resting on Xanthorrhoea johnsonii.

Fig. 2 Caloptilia xanthopharella

Family: Gracillariidae

Gracillariids are usually very small elegant moths boasting bright colours and

patterns. They are often less than 7 mm long and go unnoticed by most observers.

The wings are usually over 5 times as long as they are broad. Most of these moths rest

with the head held high above the substrate and the rear end almost touching the

substrate.

The larvae are leaf miners.

BEDS PE DS OF OE Ps PE DS De Pe be Pe be Oe Pe bd Pe be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 11

Fig. 3 Chrysonoma fascialis

Family: Oecophoridae, Subfamily: Oecophorinae (a Banded Concealer Moth)

Australia has a greater number of species of these moths than the rest of the world

combined. There are over 2,300 named species but there could be over 5,000 species

in total.

The majority of Oecophorids feed inside shelters made by tying leaves together with

silk, while many feed on leaf litter and scats. The latter group tend to be drably

coloured, unlike the species shown here.

This species feeds on Eucalyptus spp. and Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box). The

larvae live in flat cases made from two pieces of leaf joined with silk which 1s carried

around.

Fig. 4 Neargyria argyraspis

Family: Crambidae, Subfamily: Crambinae

This 1s a large family of moths in Australia. They are usually small to medium in size

and are often boldly and colourfully patterned.

Note the prominent labial palps held out in front of the head.

This moth was photographed in daylight in simple rainforest near Little Yabba Creek

(south-east Queensland).

. ~_-

. ~e* om Y «* <<

* Ag

tes

MANN

4 .

= ot,

o > - e

7. ‘ 7° °

-” oe ’ 4 ‘

, = oo” . e - 5

ee eo” ~. ;

p=. aon ©. _ >= - “ ? * = ,

- = > > 2 ee a ae et ee Ut. * - - i 4

on er SO 43°4 ™ — - ‘ .

$ ~ we - wo” ~~) _ . ot . = > - :

= * —* *, oe “- ‘ > : ~~ i 7 arn ~*~ = ‘— ke >

; om ™ Se - * -_ « Pe ~ — a? 2 ose = in a? - + ~ «a - s.. : a

lad —— - “+ " - s ~ . ™ . e- ~ - @

=~ en — o>”, * eg te BOO ate ee? 7 . -

a 7~ aft =" 2? = > _- = > oe & ‘* ~ © oe ae ae i @ 7.

ns 7 - ~ "ss od = .- = - * . _ = * a ~ wen — a? * > ia, oo had bef A

* - . => ~— >". Pe oe ae © ot > at ss - 4? ot» Py i

~ > * ~? i) == ~ > + - a? 36. me - - _ Ps ee eS ae \ yi s _

ee ee a ee gh eo? | _ ee* eo” "ort... * 2 *%-% o* _

tw ' » “ a > » > - ~*® = : ” ~~” i ’ > - ’ ~ * > > > -_

7 =" g® - — + + ma : at 2D” ew

le " — a=. a? y” =e * — | a. es? =e os ’ —— os ee ee - .* - ™ 5 =”

- + -— - - _ * > -— ~ «* - a

° — > -” ~*~ = * > 7 -~ >= = .

i ae a ae Ea ee oS A. > —# a ae iil os = .Y 2 p= am. ~~ -_

Fig. 5 Ortholomia moluccana

Family: Notodontidae, Subfamily: Notodontinae

yD ALE

’

BEDS PE DT PS PE DT De EDT be Pe De De Pe be be Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 12

This rather grotesque looking moth comes to light at night usually in autumn and

winter. The colour and shape would suggest that the moth rests on a tree branch

during the day. The resemblance to a dead twig would confer protection from

predators.

Fig. 6 Callimima lophoptera

Family: Oecophoridae, Subfamily: Oecophorinae

This moth is a rainforest species. The larvae live in a communal shelter made from

live leaves of the host plants which are Neolitsia dealbata (White Bollygum

F:Lauracea) and probably Syzygium australe (Brush Cherry F:Myrtaceae). Both of

these tree species are found in riparian rainforest.

A silk cocoon is constructed inside a rolled piece of leaf that 1s attached so that it

protrudes at right angles to a branch. The moth has been collected in New South

Wales and Queensland.

Fig. 7 Glaucocharis molydocrossa

Family: Crambidae, Subfamily: Crambinae

This is a small moth with a wingspan of about 16 mm. They rest during the day with

wings folded tent-wise above the body and come to light at night.

The labial palps are very prominent and held straight out in front of the head. They

are clothed in hairlike scales that give them a brush-like appearance.

This species was photographed in dry rainforest at Heifer Creek (Queensland).

Fig. 8 Lychnographa heroica

Family: Geometridae, Subfamily: Ennominae

This striking moth is large and lives 1n rainforest habitat. The specimen seen here was

photographed at Springbrook in the Gold Coast hinterland.

It belongs to a very large family of moths with over 1,273 named species 1n Australia.

The larvae lack some of the prolegs and so move with a looping gait, giving them the

common name of looper moths.

BEDS PE PS PE DT Pe DE De Pe be Pe Pe De he pe Pe bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 13

Fig. 9 Agathia prasinaspis (female)

Family: Geometridae, Subfamily: Geometrinae

This striking moth belongs to a group of Geometrids known as “emerald moths” due

to their mostly green colouration.

This species, like some of the other emeralds, exhibits sexual dimorphism.

The male lacks the brown stripe across the centre of the forewing.

This moth has been collected in New Guinea, Queensland and in New South Wales.

This rainforest species comes to light at night.

Fig. 10 Niceteria macrocosma

Family: Geometridae, Subfamily: Ennominae

This is one of the most striking Geometrids, with the common name of Showy

Geometrid. The larvae are green with a faint yellow stripe on the lateral areas. They

feed on Eucalyptus spp. and Angophora spp. Their natural range is from the Atherton

Tableland to Victoria and South Australia, with records from Tasmania.

The adults are attracted to light and appear in the lowlands of south-eastern

Queensland from April to May, in the highlands of south-eastern Queensland earlier

in March and in the Granite Belt area in January.

Fig. 11 Corgatha drosera

Family: Erebidae, Subfamily: Boletobiinae

PE PS PE DT Pe PE DT De Oe be be he be Pe he bd Pe bd bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 14

The Corgatha spp. are small to medium sized moths with elaborate colours and

patterns. Some have a pronounced “hook” on the apex of the forewing. They often

rest with the wings held broadly tent-wise displaying the beautiful and intricate

colours and patterns of the forewing and most of the hindwing.

They are attracted to the light sheet at night. There are about 14 described Australian

species.

Fig. 12 Amerila crokeri

Family:Erebidae, Subfamily: Arctiinae

This moth belongs to a family of moths with bright colours of white, black, red and

yellow. These colours are a warning that they are poisonous or distasteful to

predators.

There are about 6 Amerila spp. in Australia and they are mostly tropical, with this

species extending into northern New South Wales.

All Amerila spp. produce a strong-smelling acrid yellow froth when handled roughly.

This froth is produced from glands on the thorax near the wing bases. Predators are

deterred from eating the moth by this behaviour.

The larvae of Amerila spp. feed on the leaves of plants in the families Periplocaceae

and Apocynaceae, both of which produce milky latex rich 1n toxins which affect the

heart.

ee Fig. 13 Musotima sp. ANIC1 (Musotima

sp. aff. M. suffusalis)

Family: Crambidae, Subfamily:

_ Musotiminae

mh sabe cay - This colourful moth belongs to a group of

. Pica : ; ;

; ie. 15 Australian species in the subfamily

~ Musotiminae. Some of these species feed

on ferns as larvae.

They are attracted to light, but sometimes

fly in daylight.

Most of the 15 species are small with

wingspans of about 13mm.

Photos Graham McDonald

References:

Common, I. F. B. (1990) Moths of Australia Melbourne University Press

Herbison-Evans, Don and Crossley, Stella http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au

Zborowski, P. and Edwards, E. D. (2007) A Guide to Australian Moths CSIRO

Publishing

BEDS PE DT OF RE PS PE DS De Re be be be Oe Re bd Pe be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 15

Life history notes on the Brown Ringlet, Hypocysta metirius

(Butler, 1875) Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae — Wesley Jenkinson

The Brown Ringlet, also previously known as

the Common Brown Ringlet, 1s encountered

sporadically along the eastern coastal and

tableland districts from north-eastern

Queensland, along the Great Dividing Range

into southern New South Wales. The species 1s

common in south-eastern Queensland.

In Queensland this species 1s encountered in a

range of habitats including upland tropical and

subtropical rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest,

dry rainforest and eucalypt open-forest with moist gullies and rainforest elements in

the understorey. This species doesn’t penetrate as far into the dry inland regions as the

Grey Ringlet (Hypocysta pseudirius).

The adults typically fly along forest margins in dappled sunlight usually within

several metres of the ground. They have the typical ringlet ‘bobby’ flight and while

basking their wings are periodically opened and closed quickly, revealing the upper-

side colours. Once disturbed they can fly quite rapidly and can be difficult to follow

through understorey vegetation. Both sexes feed from a variety of small native and

introduced flowers including the exotic Lantana (Lantana camara).

Whilst in flight, the adults can be very easily confused with the Grey Ringlet

(H. pseudirius) and the Orange-streaked Ringlet (7. irius), particularly older worn

specimens. In comparison to H. pseudirius, H. metirius is brown rather than brownish

erey. The orange patch on the hindwing upperside is more defined and brighter with

the eyespot also being slightly larger. The hindwing underside usually also only has

one single silver spot between the two eyespots. The hindwing tornus is also

Narrower.

Image left: Underside of male H. metrius showing single central

silver spot between the two larger eyespots.

Image centre: Underside of male H. pseudirius

ss Showing 2 smaller ‘silver’

eyespots. N.B. Colour

differences between these two

species

Image right: H. irius with larger

eyespots for comparison

BEDS PE DT OF DE Ps PE DS pe Re be Pe be De Pe bd Pe he

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 16

In comparison to H. irius, H. metirius 1s lacking any orange coloration on the

upperside forewing (being the main differing feature), and the two eyespots on the

hindwing underside are smaller. H. metirius is also generally smaller in size than

H. irtus.

The sexes are quite similar in appearance. In comparison to the males, the females are

slightly paler on the upperside and have a slightly broader forewing with the termen

more rounded (Braby 2000).

The average size of the specimens pictured 1s males 30mm and females 31mm.

Hypocysta metirius (Brown Ringlet)

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

A female was collected in April 2011 and was kept 1n captivity, laid several eggs and

was then later released. These eggs were kept for life history studies. Subsequently

the larvae were successfully raised in captivity on the native grass Green Couch

(Cynodon dactylon), a known host for this species.

Freshly laid egg The eggs were pale green, smooth, off spherical,

approximately 0.5 mm in diameter.

The first instars consumed their eggshells shortly after emergence. The

larvae were observed feeding solitarily during daylight hours and resting

on either side of the leaves of the utilised host plant. Typically like other species in

the genus, they were very slow moving and fed from the outer edge of the leat. Larvae

raised completed four instars (similar to H. irius, H. pseudirius, H. adiante and H.

euphemia). The larvae raised produced two colour forms brown and green as pictured.

Although the final instar larval length was overlooked, Braby 2000 states 20mm.

1“ instar larva 24 instar larva

3" instar larva 4" instar green larva form

BEDS Pe DE DT be PE DE be Pe Pe be De Pe Ne bd Pe Pe PT

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 17

4". instar brown larva form 4" instar brown larva head

A pupa, measuring 12mm in length,

was located below a stem of the host

plant. It was attached with silk

hanging by the cremaster with the

head suspended down.

The shortest time from egg to adult

was over two months, with egg

duration 8 days, larval duration 48

days and pupal duration 15 days. The

last adult to emerge was 5 days later.

Pupa lateral view Pupa dorsal view

Within the new boundary of the Scenic Rim Regional Shire south of Brisbane, I have

records of adults from October to April. The adults appear to be more numerous

during late spring and summer. However, this may relate to the timing of local rainfall

triggering fresh growth of the host plants. At this location there are probably two

generations per year.

Acknowledgements: I thank my friend and colleague John Moss for commenting on

the manuscript.

Photos Wesley Jenkinson

References:

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

Distribution. vol 2. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

TK Oi OK 2K OK FS FS OK

The history of the Australian Anthelidae and notes on separating out

some species — Peter Hendry

The Australian Anthelidae as revised by Edwards and Fairey (1966) in Checklist

of the Lepidoptera of Australia (herein referred to as The Checklist) contains 73

species in 8 genera in 2 subfamilies (though Edwards and Fairey state 74 species,

repeated counts from The Checklist only produce 73) as well as 5 species noted as

unplaced. The subfamily Munychryiinae contains 2 genera, Munychryia with 2

species and Gephyroneura containing only 1 species; while the subfamily Anthelinae

contains 6 genera, Chenuala with | species, Nataxa with 2 species, Chelepteryx with

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 18

2 species, Anthela with 56 species, Omphaliodes with 1 species and Prterolocera with

8 species. Turner (1904) under the genus Anthela stated, “A large genus extensively

developed in Australia, but not at present known from other regions. It will probably be found in

New Guinea, and perhaps from more remote regions”. As predicted and in the same year,

Bethune-Baker (1904) named Anthela ekeikei from New Guinea. Several species

have since been named from there with only two species occurring in both Australia

and New Guinea, Edwards and Fairey (1966). There is an image of one unnamed

species of Anthela on the IBOL web site from Indonesia, though from the island

containing West Papua and Papua New Guinea. It must be noted that there are

several known unnamed species in Australia and New Guinea.

The first Anthelidae to be named was the Urticating Anthelid Anthela nicothoe

(Boisduval, 1832) (Fig. 1). It was collected during the voyage of the Astrolabe, from

1826 to 1829, through the Pacific Ocean, captained by Jules Dumont d'Urville.

A. nicothoe could have been named by one of three people. Pierre André Latreille,

being a friend of d'Urville, had promised to take care of the entomological part of the

voyage but became far too busy 1n his own work and organized for Jean-Baptiste

Lamarck to fill the roll. The untimely death of Lamarck in 1829 put paid to this

resolution and the task once again fell to Latreille. Still too busy with his own affairs,

Latreille asked d’Urville to appoint another person. Jean Baptiste Boisduval was

appointed and in 1832 Voyage de Découvertes de L'Astrolabe; Lepidopteres was

published containing the original description of A. nicothoe. Boisduval’s original

description placed it in the genus Bombax which placed it 1n the superfamily

Bombycoidea, an interesting insight which I will explore later.

The next Anthelidae species to be named was the Batwing Moth Chelepteryx

collesi Gray, 1835 (Fig. 2). Gray also raised the genus Chelepteryx as a sub genus to

Endromis which 1s now in the family Endromidae and not found 1n Australia. At the

time this placed it in the superfamily Noctuoidea. The specific name Collesi was

named in honour of Mr Colles who had brought several specimens to Great Britain.

In 1839 Joachim Francois Philibert Feisthamel named Saturnia laplacei (now a

synonym of Chelepteryx collesi), thereby creating the first of many synonyms to

come. This was followed by the naming of Prerolocera elizabetha (White, 1841). It

had been collected during the expeditions into Western Australia by Caption George

Grey, who later became Governor of South Australia. The description by White was

published 1n the appendix to Grey’s journal. White originally placed it in the genus

Odonestis, a genus 1n the family Lasiocampidae, which is in the superfamily

Lasiocamoidea, though at the time it may still have been regarded as a member of the

superfamily Bombycoidea, as Harris only raised the superfamily Lasiocamoidea in

the same year, 1841.

In 1855 Francis Walker raised the genera Nataxa, Anthela, Darala (now a

synonym of Anthela), Megethna (now a synonym of Chelepteryx) and Prterolocera in

BEDS PE PS PE DS Pe De pe Pe be Pe Pe be Pe pe be bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 19

the family Liparidae (now a synonym of Lymantriidae in the superfamily

Noctuoidea).

Nataxa: Walker unsure of the genus first named the Nataxa Moth, Perna’?

flavescens (Fig. 3) (Perna is now a synonym of Pernattia in the family Lasicampidae),

he then raised the genus Nataxa and placed 1n it N. flavifasica. Swinhoe (1903) as

first reviser placed Perna? flavescens in Nataxa and N. flavifasica became a synonym

of N. flavescens.

Anthela: When Walker raised Anthela he placed in it just one species, the Rusty

Anthelid, 4. ferruginosa.

Darala: Walker created twelve sections under the genus Darala and placed in it

twenty four species, twenty two being new. The two previously named species

Walker placed in Darala were, White’s Odonestis elizabetha (now Pterolocer

elizabetha) and Boisduval’s Bombax nicothoe. However in the case of nicothoe he

described a male under the name Darala adusta and placed a description of

Boisduval’s female Bombax nicothoe under it, almost in synonymy. This was

qualified by placing a question mark after Bombax nicothoe. Today it is known as

Anthela nicothoe with Darla adusta as a synonym. Of the twenty four species Walker

assigned to Darala, today only twelve are recognized as species 1n the Anthelidae.

His Darala reducta 1s now Leptocneria reducta 1n the family Lymantriidae and

Darala falcata 1s now Periga falcata which 1s in the family Saturnidae and 1s not

Australian. The remaining ten, not recognized as Anthelia species are all synonyms

of various species. As an example, under his section 2 Walker described 8 species,

the Common Anthelid, D. acuta, D. excisa, the Varied Anthela, D. varia,

D. conspersa, D. ferrugine, D. simplex, D. plana and D. parva, today only 2 remain

the Common Anthelid, acuta and the Varied Anthela, varia, both now in the genus

Anthela. Of the others, 4 are synonyms of A. acuta, D. excisa, D. conspersa,

D. simplex and D. plana. D. ferrugine 1s now a synonym of D. subfalcata, from

Walker’s section 5 and D. parva is now a synonym of Anthela ferruginosa. Walker

did point out under D. excisa that 1t may be a variety of A. acuta and under D. plana

that it may be a variety of D. simplex (as stated now a synonym of A. acuta).

Confusing as this all 1s A. acuta also has 3 other synonyms, D. guadriplaga (Walker,

1862), Ennomos potentaria (Walker, 1863) and D. delineate (Walker, 1865); while

A. varia has 5 synonyms one D. hamata (Walker, 1855) is from Walker’s section 5 of

his Darala. The others include Colussa odenestaria (Walker, 1860), D. pinguis

(Walker, 1865), Eu/ophocampe amoena (Scott, 1893) which was really only a

manuscript name as Scott died before it was published in his second volume of

Australian Lepidoptera and their Transformations. A.S. Olliff and Scott’s daughter,

Helena Ford, published the book as editors and as such updated the names to their

current status. As Scott’s name, Eulophocampe amoena, appeared on the drawing

they were shown as synonyms 1n the text (this was pointed out in The Checklist) and

the final synonym of A. varia is A. humata (Turner, 1921), a misspelling of Walker’s

BEDS PE DS OF DE Pe PE DS pe Pe be Pe be pe Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 20

D. hamata. | have not found any reference to Walker’s sections since his original

description of Darala. In summary, in 1855 Walker placed 24 species in his genus

Darala. Today 2 are not recognized as being in the family Anthelidae, | is in the

genus Pterolocer, 10 are synonyms of various species in the genus Anthela, leaving

11 species, now all recognized in the genus Anthela. These species are A. acuta and

A. varia, as seen above, the Western Anthelid A. canescens, A. cinerascens, the Day-

flying Anthelid A. connexa, the Grey-headed Anthelid A. excellens, A. inornata, the

Eye-spot Anthelid A. ocellata (Fig. 4), the Postica Anthelid A. postica, the Replete

Anthelid A. repleta, and A. subfalcata.

Megethna: The genus Megethna was raised and sunk at the same time. Walker

used the name Megethna 1n a Synopsis of Genera to the family Liparidae (now

Lymamtriidae). In the body of the work he used the name Chalepteryx (a misspelling

of the genus Chelepteryx, which we will explore later) and noted “the above name

(Chalepteryx [sec]) having been given to the genus, that of Megethna, by which it Is

distinguished in the Synopsis, must be cancelled”.

Pterolocera: When Walker first raised Pterolocera he placed in it one species,

P. amplicornis. At the same time Walker also named Trichiura obscura (now

Omphaliodes obscura) (Fig. 5). Trichiura 1s a genus 1n the Lasiocampidae.

In the same year, 1855, Dr Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schaffer raised the

genus Ommatoptera (now a synonym of Anthela) and named Laelia australasiae

(now a synonym of Anthela nicothoe).

In 1856 Edward Newman named The Toothe Antelid, Teara denticulata and the

Eight Spotted Anthelia, 7. guenei (Fig. 6) both are now in the genus Anthela. The

genus Teara 1s in the family Notodontidae. In the same year Herrich-Schaffer named

Ptilophora insignis (now Pterolocera insignis) (Fig.7), Ommatoptera diophthalma

(now a synonym of Anthela repleta) and O. tetrophthalma (now a synonym of

A. ocellata).

Between 1858 and 1863 several synonyms were created by Walker, Herrich-

Schaffer and Hans Daniel Johan Wallengren who raised the genus Festra and placed

init F. affabricata (now a synonym of Chelepteryx collesi). The only species

remaining from this period is shown 1n The Checklist as unplaced, being, ? directa,

named by Walker in 1862 in his 1860 genus Colussa (now a synonym of Anthela). In

1865 Walker named eight more species in his genus Darala, only four remain as

species, including the Western Toothed Anthelid Anthela basigera (Fig. 8), the rest

are synonyms of other species. At the same time he raised the genus Munychryia and

placed in it one species, the Grey Anthelid, MZ senicula (Fig. 9). The same year he

also named Nataxa rubida, now a synonym to N. flavescens. The years 1866 to 1872

saw seven more synonyms created by Walker and Gabriel Koch. The naming of

Arnissa simplex (now a synonym of Anthela addita) by Walker in 1869 was the last

entry into the Anthelidae by him. He passed away on the 5" Oct 1874.

BEDS REDS OF PE Pe PE DS De Pe be Pe be pe Pe be Pe hg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 21

In 1874 Arthur Gardiner Butler named Darala limonea (now Anthela limonea)

and Rudolf Felder raised the genus Omphaliodes into which Walker’s Trichiura

obscura was placed in The Checklist. Felder (1874) also named the White Stemmed

Gum Moth, Chelepteryx chalepteryx (Fig. 10), placing it at the time in Walker’s

genus Darala. As mentioned earlier Walker misspelt the genus Chelepteryx as

Chalepteryx. In 1904 Turner believed Felder was following this misspelling thus

making the specific name Chelepteryx, and as he was referring it to the genus

Chelepteryx making 1t congeneric, he declared it necessary to change the specific

name and called it Chelepteryx felderi, atter its author. Today the name Chelepteryx

chalepteryx stands, with Turner’s C. felderi as a synonym. It must be noted that Koch

named this species in 1872 as Chalepterix kochii but the name was declared nomen

nudum which implies it does not have a description and fails to conform to Article 12

of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Felder, in 1874, also named

Anthela rubeola, placing it in Walker’s genus Darala. He named several other

Anthelidae species, now all synonyms, and in 1875, in conjunction with Alois

Friedrich Rogenhofer, named Hypochroma nyssiata (now a synonym of Munychryia

senicula).

In 1882 Butler named Anthela stygiana (Fig. 11), placing it in Walker’s genus

Darala. 1885 saw Rudolph Rosenstock name Colussa vinosa which 1s now a

synonym of Anthela addita. In 1890 Johann Gottlieb Otto Tepper named Opsirhina

tintinarra (now a synonym of Anthela canescens). 1891 saw Edward Meyrick and

Thomas Pennington Lucas at work, Meyrick naming Anthela asterias (Fig. 12),

A. protocentra and A. xantharcha placing them in Walker’s genus Darala. He also

named the Rose Anthelid, Chenuala heliaspis (Fig. 14) using the generic name

Ocneria which is in the family Lymantriidae. Lucas named A. asciscens, A. linearis

and A. rubriscripta, placing them all in Walker’s genus Darala and at the same time

he created several synonyms.

In 1892 Colonel Charles Swinhoe, 1n his Catalogue of eastern and Australian

Lepidoptera vol. 1, raised the genus Chenuala and placed in it one species C. rufa

which is now a synonym of C. heliaspis. It was Turner (1922) who placed Meyrick’s

Ocneria heliaspis in the genus Chenuala. Swinhoe also raised the genus Newmania

and placed in 1t Newman’s Teara guenei. Swinhoe (1892) also created several

synonyms and played with Walker’s genus Darala placing many of them in Walker’s

1860 genus Colussa. Also in 1892, Oswald Bertram Lower named Darala

ochroptera and D. macrota. D ochroptera 1s now in the genus Anthela while

D. macrota 1s one of the five species listed in The Checklist as unplaced. In the same

year Lower and William Forsell Kirby created two more synonyms.

1893 was the year Alexander Walker Scott’s Australian Lepidoptera and their

Transformations Vol. 2 was published, with Olliff and Ford as editors and for the

reason explained above his synonym of A. varia was created. This publication also

BEDS PE DS OF RE Ps PE DS De Re be Pe he pe Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 22

created the synonym Chelepteryx expolitus of Chenuala heliaspis. In the same year

Lower created two more synonyms.

In 1895 Lucus named Darala reltoni (now in the genus Anthela) and in 1898 he

named Darala maculosa and D. trisecta, both of which now sit in The Chicklist with

those species listed as unplaced. In 1902 Swinhoe named Darala adriana,

D. clementi, D. pudica and D. rubicunda (now in the genus Anthela). At the same

time he created the synonym D. figlina of Anthela exoleta. In the same year Lower

named Darala callixantha and D. heliopa (now in the genus Anthela). 1902 was also

the year that Alfred Jefferis Turner entered the fray, he named Anthela phoenicias

(Fig. 13) and A. neurospasta. At the end of his description of A. phoenicias he states,

‘Anthela (type ferruginosa, WIk, iv, 854) includes and supersedes Darala (type ocellata, WIk,

iv, 887.)”, the WIk iv, 854, refers to Walker, his volume iv of his List of specimens of

lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum published in 1855 and

the number following being the page number of the specific description. Turner has

recognized Anthela and Darala as the same genus and as such has chosen Anthela,

published first on page 854, over Darala, published on page 887, (making Darala a

synonym of Anthela). In spite of the fact Darala, as can been seen above, was widely

used by several authors, Turner stuck with what was published first. In 1902 Turner

also named Anthela aspilota which 1s now a synonym of Anthela phoenicias.

In 1903 Swinhoe published a paper titled, A Revision of the Old World

Lymantriidae in the National Collection (British). He follows Turner and leaves

Darala as a synonym of Anthela. He also made Walker’s 1860 genus Colussa (into

which he previously placed several Darala species) and his own 1892 genus

Newmania, synonyms of Anthela. At the same time he also declared Butler’s 1886

genus Leptocneria to be a synonym of Anthela. Today Leptocneria 1s a genus 1n the

family Lymantriudae. In the same paper he named Anthela ostra and A. unisigna and

created four more synonyms.

In 1904 Turner took the first steps in separating the Anthelidae from the

Lymantriidae. In his paper A Classification of the Australian Lymantriidae, he raises

the subfamily Anthelinae with Anthela as the type genus. He based this on, “the very

peculiar structure of the areole of the forewings, and usually also by the wide separation of vein

8 of the hindwing from the celP’. He expanded on this in 1920 as we shall see later. In

1904 Turner also named Anthela achromata and created the synonym Anthela

symphona of Anthela ocellata and the synonym Chelepteryx felderi which we

explored earlier.

The years 1905-1917 are rather unremarkable in that only one species was

named, Anthela callispila, Lower, 1905 and Turner raised the genus Aprosita now a

synonym of Omphaliodes while between them J. Malcolm Fawcett, Karl Grinberg,

Lower, Swinhoe and Turner created 11 more synonyms.

BEDS PE DS OF RE Pe PE DS a Pe be Pe he De Pe bd Pe he

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 23

On the 15" October 1919, Turner’s paper A New Family of Lepidoptera, the

Anthelidae was read to the Entomological Society of London and published in its

Transactions on the 15“ January 1920. Within the paper Turner expands on “the very

peculiar structure of the areole”’, he illustrated the venations of the Lymantriidae species

Laelia obsolete and those of Anthela ferruginosa and stated “The accompanying figure

[(fig1)] shows the neuration of one of the more primitive genera of the Liparidae.

[Lymantriidae] /t will be noted that it shows the presence of an areole typically formed, from

which arise vein 10 by a separate stalk, and 7, 8, 9 by acommon stalk. This structure occurs

also in other families, such as the Arctiadae, Noctuidae, Notodontidae, and Geometridae.

Compare with this the neuration of Anthela ferruginosa WIk. (fig. 2). The peculiarities of the

areole are at once apparent. This is very elongate, all the veins 7, 8, 9, 10 arise from It

separately, and a triangular portion at the apex appears to be cut off by a cross-vein’’. He

also noted that the triangular portion was not always evident. I have reproduced

Turner’s (fig. 2) here as Fig. 18, and have shown the mostly numeric notation Turner

used in 1920 in grey, along with the more modern alpha-numeric notation he used in

his 1946 paper, A Revision of the Phylogeny and Classification of the Lepidoptera, in

blue. In his 1920 paper he also raised the genus Gephyroneura and misspells the

genus Munychryia as Munychryta.

In 1921 Turner produced a paper titled Revision of Australian Lepidoptera —

Hypsidae, Anthelidae in which he cements the Anthelidae and places in it the

following genera, Chelepteryx, Pterolocera, Nataxa, Aprosita (now a synonym of

Omphaliodes), Gephyroneura and Munychryia. Today the genera of Anthelidae are

as stated by Turner in 1921, with the exception of Aprosita being a synonym of

Omphaliodes and the inclusion of Chenuala, which he included in 1922. Of note and

as can been seen from above, Turner (1921) under the genus Anthela states,

“[ recognise 40 species, of which 11 are here described for the first time. Deducting these,

there remain 29 species, which have received no fewer than 8/7 names. This excessive

synonymy is due to the great variability of many of the species not having been previously

recognised. The sexes often differ, sometimes considerably, in colour, wing-shape, and

distinctness of marking. Apart from sexual differences, many species vary much in colour, and

in the development of lines on the wings; in some examples these may be very distinct and

characteristic, in others of the same species they may be completely obsolete”. Of his 11

new Anthela species, 2 are now recognized as synonyms. He also more formally

raised the genus Gephyroneura and named 1n it G. cosmia. At the same time he again

misspelt Munychryia, this time as Munichryia and as pointed out above misspelt the

Anthela varia synonym hamata as humata. Turner’s 1921 paper Revision of

Australian Lepidoptera — Hypsidae, Anthelidae, as pointed out in The Checklist, is the

most useful for Australian lepidopterists and we will explore it further when we look

at separating out some species.

In 1922 Turner described 3 more species 1n the genus Anthela, while Swinhoe

went on a bit of a misspelling spree, misspelling 2 genera and 2 species and created a

synonym of Pterolocera ferrugineofusca. Between the years 1924-1939 Turner

BEDS REDS OF RE bs PE PS pe Pe bs Pe be De Pe bd Pe bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 24

named 6 more species in the genus Anthela and created 4 more synonyms. In 1944

Turner named his last Anthelidae. He raised the genus Aproscepta (now a synonym of

Nataxa) and placed in it A. amblopis (now Nataxa amblopis). This species seems to

have a very limited distribution. It was described from a single specimen collected by

Jack Macqueen on his farm at Milmerran. Turner states it was collected in January,

and as he named it in 1944 it is an assumption on my part that he means January

1944. I have only found records of two other specimens, a female collected in 1950

and a male in 1957, both collected by Macqueen at Milmerran. Turner’s last foray

into the Anthelidae was to list the family in the superfamily Noctuoidea in his 1946

paper The Phylogeny and Classification of the Lepidoptera, in which he also

illustrated the venations of several species. Turner passed away on the 29" December

1947. Embrik Strand was the only other author to add to the Anthelidae during this

period. In 1925 he named Pterolocera ferruginea and P. ferrugineofusca. For the

astute you may have noticed P. ferrugineofusca was named 1n1925 while earlier I

stated Swinhoe created a synonym of P. ferrugineofusca in 1922. This fact 1s pointed

out in The Checklist. Walker (1855) in his description of P. amplicornis describes a

variety y, his Latin version reads in part; Var. y. Var.B similis; thorax ferrugineo-

fuscus **---. Swinhoe misread this as a synonym P. similis and published it as such.

Strand then gave the name P. ferrugineofusca to Walkers variety y. The only other

thing to happen between 1922 and 1947 was several authors created several more

synonyms.

The last Anthelidae species to be named was Munychryia periclyta by lan Francis

Bell Common and Noel MacFarland in 1970. At the same time they raised the

subfamily Munychrylinae and placed in it the genera Munychryia and

Gephyronneura.

The placement of Anthelidae to superfamily has had many incarnations

throughout the years. The first named species was placed in the genus Bombax which

placed it in the superfamily Bombycoidea. Walker moved it to his genus Darala in

the family Lymantriudae superfamily Noctuiodea. Turner had treated the Anthelidae

as a member of the superfamily Noctuoidea, while Common treated them as a

member of the Bombycoidea and in /nsects of Australia, 1970, stated his reason as

being “‘the absence of tympanal [hearing] organs at once distinguishes it from the

Noctuoidea’. While Turner (1946) recognized the superfamily Lasiocampoidea with

the one family Lasiocampidae other Australian authors, Common (1970), Common

(1990), Edwards and Fairey (1996), Zborowski and Edwards (2007) and Marriott

(2008), all listed Lasiocampidae within the Bombycoidea. However, Minet in 1994

included Anthelidae with Lasiocampidae in the Lasiocampoidea, Edwards and Fairey

(1996) and was recognized as such by the British Natural History Museum and others.

Zwick, Regier, Mitter and Cummings (2010) in their paper Increased gene sampling

yields robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera), state,

“The family Anthelidae (Lasiocampoidea) Is reincluded in the superfamily Bombycoidea’’.

BEDS PE PS PE DS PF De De Oe bs Pe Pe Pe Pe pe Pe bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 25

A look at separating out some species:

Turner’s 1921 paper Revision of Australian Lepidoptera-Hypsidae, Anthelidae 1s

available on line at

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3785225#

As Turner (1921) pointed out there is great variability among some species and

some extreme examples of sexual dimorphism (see Chenuala heliaspis (Fig. 14)).

The Checklist also notes there are several species complexes, 1n which more than one

species may be involved. These include Anthela repleta, A. varia, A. canescens,

A. excellens, A. astata, A. acuta, A. pyrrhobaphes and others. Turner (1921) gives a

key to the genera of the Anthelidae and a key to the large genus Anthela, in which he

states, “Owing to the variability of some of the species the following tabulation must be used

with caution’. It must also be noted that the synonymy used by Turner and that in The

Checklist varies, e.g. Turner’s A. varia lists as synonyms, Darala integra, D. humata

[sec], D. pinguis, D. latifera, D. caniceps, D. limonea, D. succinea, D. scortea,

Colussa odenestaria and C. uvaria, while The Checklist treats D. limonea as a species

in its own right (Anthela limonea), D. latifera, D. succinea and D. scortea as

synonyms of A. canescens and D. integra and D.caniceps as synonyms of A. excelens,

sO even more cautions needs to be used. However there are many useful tips within

Turner’s work. I have had problems with differentiating between some specimens of

A. varia and A. acuta. Though A. varia is generally bigger, there is a point where a

small A. varia 1s similar in size to a large A. acuta and if trying to identify an image,

size 1s impossible to gauge. Turner points out that the discal spots on the forewings of

A. acuta are white-centred (Fig. 15), at least on the underside while in A. varia they

are not (Fig. 16). This brings up another problem with images, you may not be able to

see the underside.

One species I have seen misidentified over the years is Anthela excellens but as

pointed out to me by Ted Edwards and I have since read in Turner’s 1921 paper, it is

easily identified by the fact it has a grey head (Fig. 17) which contrasts with its

overall colour. It also has a greyish area near the apex of the forewing which can be

hard to distinguish 1n worn specimens. Separating A. repleta from A. acuta 1s done by

the fact that in A. repleta the postmedian line in the forewing is crenulated

(scalloped).

I am only a student of the Anthelidae and have recently been indebted to Ted

Edwards for identifying three of my specimens. Two belong to the Anthela astata

complex which differed from each other by one having prominent dark discal spots on

each forewing which on the underside contain some whitish scales while the other

specimen has two hardly discernible white discal spots on the upper surface of each

forewing which on the underside are darkish with one of each pair containing whitish

scales. The other specimen Ted identified for me was a known unnamed Anthela

species.

BEDS PE DS PE DS Oe De pe Pe be Pe Pe Pe Pe pe Pe bd be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 26

Miscellaneous Notes: Marriott 2008, points out that there 1s only one known

specimen of Anthela allocota. It was possibly collected between 1860 and 1890 but

not named until Turner named it in 1921. Marriott states “/t may be an aberrant

specimen of another Anthelid or indeed the sole example of a species which is rarely seen or

extinct’. The genus Pterolocera is one in which I have had no experience and appears

to have many unnamed species. Marriott 2008, notes “Pterolocera in Victoria are

apparently all without names. Because the female are flightless [in most species] sedentary

colonies form and this may have been a factor in the develooment of many species’.

The common names used herein are from Marriott 2008.

In preparing this article I am indebted to Christine Lambkin and Margaret

Greenway for the retrieval of some historical papers and to Ted Edwards for his help

in identifying some of my specimens. I am also very grateful to the Biodiversity

Heritage Library which has placed so many of the early publications on line.

References:

Bethune-Baker, G. T., 1904. New Lepidoptera from British New Guinea. Novitates Zoologicae

Vol XI.

Boisduval J.B., 1832. Voyage de Decouvertes de L'Astrolabe; Lepidopteres

Butler A.G., 1874. Descriptions of some new Heterocerous Lepidoptera from Australia Cistula

Entomologica V1 1869-76

Butler A.G., 1882. on Melbourne Lepidoptera The Annals and Magazine of Natural History

series 5 v9

Common I. F. B, 1970. Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies) in The Insects of Australia 765-866

Common I. F. B & N. McFarland, 1970. A new Subfamily for Munychryia Walker and

Gephyroneura Turner (Lepidoptera : Anthelidae)and the Description of a new Species

from Western Australia Australian Journal of Entomology V9, Issue 1, pages 11-

22, April 1970

Common, I. F. B., 1990. ‘Moths of Australia’

Edwards, E. D. and Fairey, K. D., 1996. Anthelidae. In ‘Checklist of the Lepidoptera of

Australia. Monographs of Australian Lepidoptera. Volume 4’.

Felder R. & Rogenhofer A.F., 1874-1875. Reise der Osterreichischen fregatte novara um die

erde in den jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den befehlen des commodore b. Von

wiullerstorf-urbair. Zoologischer theil. Zweiter band. Zweite aetheilung: lepidoptera

Gray G.R., 1835.Description of a new Species of Australian Moth. Transactions of The

Entomological Society of London V1 1836 p121

Herrich-Schaffer G.A.W., 1855. Sammlung neuer oder wenig bekannter aussereuropdischer

Schmetterlinge

IBOL web site: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_ Taxonpage?taxid=188154

Lower O.B., 1892. Lepidoptera 7ransactions of the Royal Society of South Australia V16 1892

Lucas T.P., 1891. On Queensland and Other Australian Lepidoptera Proceedings of the

Linnean Society of New South Wales 2 v 6 -1891

Lucas T.P., 1898. Descriptions of Queensland Lepidoptrra Proceedings of the Royal Society of

Queensland V13 1898

Marriott P., 2008. Silk Moths and Allies — Bombycoidea Moths of Victoria Part|

Meyrick E., 1891. Descriptions of New Australian Lepidoptera 7ransactions of the Royal

Society of South Australia v14 1890-91

BEDS REDS OF DE Ps PE DS De Pe be Pe be De Pe bd Pe be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 27

Newman E., 1856. Characters of a few Australian Lepidoptera Transactions of The

Entomological Society of London 1854-56 series 2 V3 p283

Nielson E. S., Edwards E.D, and Rangsi T.V., 1996. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia.

Monographs of Australian Lepidoptera. Volume 4

Rosenstock R., 1885. On Australian Lepidoptera The Annals and Magazine of Natural History

series 5 v16

Swinhoe C., 1892. Lymantridae. Catalogue of Eastern and Australian Lepidoptera V1 184-

224

Swinhoe C., 1903. Resivison of the Old World Lymantride in the National

Collection. 7ransactions of The Entomological Society of London

Tepper J.G.O., 1890. Common Native Insects of South Australia part 2 Lepidoptera or

Butterflies and Moths

Turner A.J., 1902. New Australian Lepidoptera Transactions of the Royal Society of South

Australia v26 1902 p182

Turner A.J., 1904. A Classification of the Australian Lymantriadie. Transactions of the

entomological society of London 1904, 469-481.

Turner A.J., 1920. A New Family of Lepidoptera, the Anthelidae; 7ransactions of the

entomological society of London 1919, 415-419.

Turner A.J., 1921. Revision of Australian Lepidoptera-Hypsidae, Anthelidae. Proceedings of

the Linnean Society of New South Wales v46 1921 159-191

Turner A.J., 1922. Revision of Australian Lepidoptera- Saturniadae, Bombycidae, Eupterotidae,

Notodontidae. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales v47 1922

348-352

Turner A.J., 1944. Studies in Australian Lepidoptera 7ransactions of the Royal Society of South

Australia v68 1944

Turner A.J., 1946. A Review of the Phylogeny and Classification of the Lepidoptera.

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales v71 1946 303-338

Walker F., 1855. List of specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British

Museum V4 1855

Walker F., 1860. List of specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British

Museum V19-V21 1859

Walker F., 1862. Characters of undescribed Lepidoptera in the Collection of W. W. Saunders,

Esq. Transactions of The Entomological Society of London 1862-64 series 3 V1 p265

Walker F., 1865. List of specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British

Museum V31-V32 1864

Walker F., 1866. List of specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British

Museum v35 1866

Walker F., 1869. Characters of Undescribed Lepidoptera Heterocera

Wallengren H.D.J., 1858. Kongliga Svenska Fregatten Eugenies Resa Omkring Jorden.

Vetenskapliga lakttagelser. II.Zoologi.1.Insecta.

White A., 1841. “Appendix F. Notes on some insects from King George's Sound". In G. Grey.

Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in North-West and Western Australia 2.

London: T. & W. Boone. pp. 450—456.

Zborowski P. and Edwards E.D., 2007. A Guide to Australian Moths

Zwick A., Regier J.C., Mitter C. & Cummings M.P., 2010. Increased gene sampling yields

robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera) Systematic

Entomology V36, Issue 1, pages 31—43, January 2011

BEDS PE PS PE DS Oe De Od Pe be Pe Pe Pe Pe pe Pe bd be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 28

/Fig. Budulata ¥

BEDS DE PE DT be Pe De be Pe Pe bd be Pe Pe bg be Be bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 29

BEDS De PERE Pe De eRe bd be De De bed De Pe Pe bd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 30

Photos Peter Hendry

Fig.

Turner's

elongated areole

| Anthela nicothoe as depicted under the synonym

Laelia Australasia by Herrich-Schaffer in 1855

2 Chelepteryx collesi as depicted under the synonym

Saturnia laplacei by Feisthamel in 1839 ;

3 Nataxa flavescens as depicted under the synonym Dicreagra ochrocephala by Felder in

1874

4 Anthela ocellatas as depicted under the synonym Ommatoptera tetophthalma by Herrich-

Schaffer in 1856

5 Omphaliodes obscura as depicted under the synonym O.nana by Felder in 1874

6 Anthela guenei as depicted as part of the original description by Newman in 1856

7 Pterolocera insignis as depicted as part of the original description by Herrich-Schaffer in

1856

8 Anthela basigera as depicted under the synonym Darala undulata by Felder in 1874

9 Munychryia senicula as depicted under the synonym Hypochroma nyssiata by Felder &

Rogenhofer, 1875

M2 c

M3 A

SA 1A Culb Cula

10 Chelepteryx chalepteryx from the original description by Felder in 1874

11 Anthela stygiana Fig. 12 Anthla asterias Fig. 13 Anthela phoenicias

14 Chenuala heliaspis Fig. 15 Anthela acuta, white-centred discal spots

16 Anthela varia discal spots Fig. 17 The grey-headed, Anthela excellens

18 Anthela ferruginosa wing venations

PE PS PART DS PE DT be PE De De Pe be De Pe bd bd Pd

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 31

New Noctuidae web site — Peter Hendry

I have just received an email from Len and Gail Wellin. Len is the man responsible

for all the images on the CSIRO Australian Moths on Line website, found at

http://www l.ala.org.au/gallery2/main.php

Len and Gail have sent a link to a German web site by Bernd Schacht which contains

an Australian section with images of moths in the families Herminiidae and

Noctuidae.

Set out in the format of the Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia, 1966, it does not

take into account recent studies which have placed many of the Noctuidae into a new

family Erebidae. The images on the site are mostly all of specimens housed in the

Australian National Insect Collection and each species may have several images.

There is an alphabetic list of genera and a list of subfamilies. A page viewed through

the subfamilies shows the genus and author as a heading followed by images of each

species in the genus. Hovering the mouse over an image will cause the specific name

and author to be displayed. Clicking on the image will bring up a page with one or

more images of the species, along with its name, author and wingspan. It must be

noted that not all species are imaged, in fact several complete genera are missing

images. In spite of this shortfall the reliability of this site will make it the “go to”

place for those trying to identify specimens from the Herminiinae or Noctuidae.

I am very grateful to Len and Gail for providing a link to this site.

http://www.noctuidae.de/page/hauptseite/index.html

BOOK REVIEW

‘Butterflies of Coastal SEQ. An Identification Guide by Trevor Ford’.

Platypus Graphics, Stafford, Brisbane, Qld. (Printer), 2012 (No ISBN). Limited

copies are available from Customer Service, at Sunshine Coast Council

Ph. (07) 5475 7272 Reviewed by A.L. Dunn

Butterflies, With the ease of digital photography nowadays, there has

of CoastaliSEQ been an unprecedented increase in the availability of

quality photos of our fauna in various productions and

especially online. No doubt, this has raised public

awareness of our faunal diversity and it reminds us that

we share this world. Indeed, we share it not just with

furry animals (which gather more endearment), but with a

multitude of small creatures too, including butterflies.

Because land in coastal regions of Australia 1s under

erowing pressure from human enterprise, butterflies (and

other wildlife not so obvious and perhaps less colourful)

are usually out-competed except in those few reservations

AT ATALALALASALALALALALAxXALALAXA CASA

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 32

An Identification{Giide

Trevor Fora

sparingly preserved as examples of the original habitat. In many new residential

estates, artificial lawn-grass (which requires no upkeep) is now replacing frontage

lawn, which increasingly limits that remaining space utilised by a multitude of ground

dwelling invertebrates (and grass-feeding garden skippers too). The author, Trevor

Ford, hopes to raise awareness of the need for shared butterfly-space in coastal

southeastern Queensland (SEQ). He trusts his booklet will encourage affirmative

action so that the local butterflies “can again prosper” in urban and residential areas

where they now struggle to retain much ground. This he suggests can be achieved by:

(1) planting native larval hosts and nectar producing flowers for adults; (2) providing

a moist environment and access to water during dry seasons; (3) limiting further

clearance of any remaining native vegetation; and (4) restricting the use of herbicides

and insecticides. Whether they will prosper in a shared environment, as hoped for,

may become the responsibility of future generations to enable; yet if young children

can access this booklet from their school ‘nature table’ (to see what they may be

losing) then that alone may be an important step forward.

Ford’s pocket-sized booklet on the butterflies of the coastal region of southeastern

Queensland covers the Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay, Brisbane, Redland and Gold

Coast shires. A map outline of the shire boundaries 1s inside the cover and clarifies the

area involved. The Introduction explains the booklet succinctly. The main text

documents each of the 90 species found regularly in the region with their status,

noteworthy aspects of behaviour, their habitat requirements, and their larval host

plants as the focus. The work would be amiss without showing the lifecycle, and the

Glasswing illustrates this, presented opposite the Contents page. One or more photos

of the adult stage, along with four commonly seen day-flying moths, illustrate each of

the species chosen for inclusion. The four moths usefully inform the novice who

might mistake them, because of their showiness, for butterflies. Yet, some

taxonomists may argue that butterflies are just several groups of ‘pretty moths’

anyway! Indeed, many who glance through nature books often think that the Skippers,

especially the Flats, look very like day-flying moths (and some do turn up at lights

too). As the text reminds, it 1s merely a set of guidelines that separate moths from

butterflies “rather than hard and fast rules’, so no need to worry too much if the

butterfly-moth dilemma seems a little blurred. The booklet of 72-pages closes with an

index of common names (not Latin names), Acknowledgements and Further

Information. The Acknowledgements list five references from where the author likely

sourced some information (and two named butterfly specialists “provided a

tremendous amount of expert advice...” which would have enriched the text); the

References Works could usefully serve as further reading for the keen enquirer. (Note

that for the final reference, the surname ‘Kitchen’ is a misspelling of Kitching.)

The booklet provides a pictorial guide intended to enable identification of those

species presented, as well as depicting the local diversity, and that part of Queensland

is a Well-endowed area of the country. Many butterflies are shown 1n the wild (which

I prefer), and others are in ‘postcard style’, which provide plain backgrounds for

BEDS REDS OF OE Pe PE DS De Pe be Pe he De Pe bd Pe hg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 33

ereater contrast. Each style is artistically acceptable (none shows pinned (dead)

specimens distastefully placed on ornamental flowers) and uplifts the magnificence of

their forms, and because of that, the photos will appeal visually to many readers too.

A small number of butterflies appear in wild situations that do not quite ring true to

usual field experience though. For example, the images of Delias nigrina on the

eround rather than on foliage 1s unusual (except at streams and soaks), and the stance

of the male Papilio aegeus on a flower 1s awkward, with its forelegs tucked up, each a

little unnatural. Nonetheless, all photos are sharp (except for the Melanitis leda in

basking stance — it is a stunning adult nonetheless, and such a basking event is

uncommonly seen) and the colours are accurately reproduced throughout. Even

children wishing to learn about colourful butterfly visitors to their gardens will readily

recognise many species using it.

The text 1s clear, concise and correct; it gives the adult sizes, often describes their

flight, and informs readers as to whether the species are common or localised etc. (1

am not keen on the use of ‘local’ which dates from early butterfly literature as it

seems grammatically peculiar, but it is an idiosyncrasy of butterfly writings). The text

also describes the habitats favoured by each species and lists host plants by both

common and technical names. It includes occasional interesting snippets too; the

similarity between the Regent Skipper and the Joseph’s Coat Moth will be intriguing

to many budding naturalists — the upperside of the moth resembles the underside of

the butterfly — and this curiosity will provoke young readers to ponder over the

remarkable mysteries of mimicry.

To encourage use by the casual naturalist and garden observer alike (for whom it is

intended), the booklet highlights the common names (usually contemporary, but some

older favourites receive mention too) with technical names alongside. The

arrangement of species 1s 1n traditional Family order. It starts with the ‘Skippers’ and

ends with the ‘Blues’, rather than on the overall colours and patterns of the species

and their similarities to one another (which might have been better). The majority of

photos of each species are very high quality and most, if not all, look very much alive.

A likely reason for this excellence 1s that the author has ‘bower-birded’ images from

about 14 other observers, who supportively offered their photos for this booklet to

ensure that only the best pictures dignify the pages. This collaboration 1s

commendable, and one to be encouraged, but I think that the publication script should

have stated (in fairness to all), that photographers retain copyright of their own

photos; page 2 would suggest otherwise, perhaps). Nonetheless, all contributors

should feel proud for supporting this educational project, as conceived by the local

Councils who funded it.

This booklet almost made it to the finish line — all photos are correctly identified as

the species stated except for the one, nicely photographed by Geoff Walker, on page

63. The booklet author had selected that beautifully poised adult, presented in its

immaculate condition, as an example of Theclinesthes miskini. The adult illustrated 1s,

BEDS PE PS PE DS PF De De Pe be Pe Pe Pe Pe pe Pe bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 34

in fact, Catopyrops florinda, and based on the colour tones of the underside, closely

matches the subspecies estrel//a, from northern Australia. A quick email-check with

the photographer (who has a webpage of his photos) confirmed that the butterfly

indeed came from the tropics, namely Darwin city, Northern Territory (G. Walker

p.c.). The characteristic whitish underside distinguishes the southern subspecies, halys

(illustrated on p. 61), from its tropical counterpart. And, since all populations of this

butterfly in the Northern Territory belong with subspecies estrella, adults matching

the one illustrated do not occur in the region covered by the booklet.

Ford’s contribution will better enable those residents in SEQ who wish to identify

many of the common and prominent butterflies in parks, gardens and local reserves.

Obviously, for some species, a little more experience will be required for certain

identifications within some complex groups; but it will help the learner seek out

similar species from other texts with which to compare the ones they have seen, as

they grow in self-efficacy or mastery. It deserves a welcomed place in every Primary

and Secondary School library in the region, and I hope that sufficient numbers were

printed should that demand be realised.

REPORT

Lammermoor Beach - Butterfly, and Tree Planting, morning —

David St. Henry

I was invited to speak about butterflies at :

the “Friends of Lammermoor Native ie in

Gardens’ inaugural event, which also Pacceees

included some tree planting and a sausage [eaape

sizzle. Lammermoor is just south of

Yeppoon on the central Queensland coast.

The native gardens there are mainly tea-

tree swamp with riparian vine thickets. It

is great that this pocket of native

vegetation 1s now protected and looked

after. The group had ordered some great

material from BOIC and I had organised

to bring my net, butterfly books and

various larvae and pupae. We had about

60 people turn up and we handed out a lot of booklets and a few membership forms.

The weather was perfect with lots of butterflies out.

I started my talk about butterflies around 8am and had some Orchard Swallowtail

larvae and chrysalids to show. I talked about the wonders of the insect world

including; different local species; poor survival rate in the wild and how to boost it by

rearing larvae indoors; over wintering (there was a big Blue Tiger/Crow site amongst

BEDS PE DT OF RE PS PE DT pe Re be Pe be De Pe bd Pe be

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 35

fa a Sos BUTTERFLEs sa

Lp. ae ale

the reper secier effects of the recent

extremely destructive cyclone Marcia,

(and the likely BIG season of butterflies in the following spring due to massive new

erowth and the canopy being shredded thus allowing more plant species to

germinate.) They were happy to hear that! (Incidentally, I caught one Blue Tiger that

had obviously survived the cyclone — its wings were shredded and reduced to nearly

1/2 of normal size — it was like a pre-schooler had tried to cut along the black veins!)

I also talked about butterfly scales; old wives tales; sightings of the Ulysses butterfly

30km north at Byfield; some evolution defying ant/larvae relationships (heaps of

bright Oak-blues and Green Tree Ants around to show); talked about metamorphosis

and the impossibility of evolution to explain how it came about and how this exquisite

design points to a Creator. Bernard d’Abrera puts it more clearly, ‘the implications

for those who continue to wishfully think that butterflies came by accidental and

mindless evolution are profoundly embarrassing. The butterfly is not simply the

winged adult, but an unbreakable composite of four morphologically distinct

creatures, all performing to a preset pattern of living events.’

We then went for a walk through the winding

bushland with all the people in tow and I

would catch any butterfly, identify it and then

get a member of the audience to release

it. Most people knew of the Blue Tiger, Wanderer, Grass Yellow and the “shiny blue’

(Oak-blue). It was wonderful to see the reactions on people’s faces as they looked at

the many different butterflies we have. We saw Fuscous Swallowtails (one female

ovipositing), Orchard Swallowtails, Varied Eggflies, Bordered Rustics, Swamp

Tigers, Blue Tigers, Common Crows, Purple Crows, Wanderers, Lesser Wanderers,

t t * tt tt tt ii tt i tt ui tt tt * tt * i tt

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 36

Yellow Albatross (only males), Bright and Purple Oak-blues, Caper Gulls, Lemon

Migrants, Scarlet Jezebels, Grass Yellows, Evening Browns, numerous blues and a

few skippers.

We planted some trees and found fuscous larvae on Micromelum. But what was

pretty special was when I was back at the marque answering questions, a Common

Crow butterfly started hovering around me and I held out my hand and it landed on

me and rested for about 4 seconds! The people asked if this normally happens and I

said no, not really! I have had a few male Eggflies land on me and the odd

swallowtail briefly 'taste’ my hand but not a good old Common Crow! It was a

rewarding and lovely morning for all.

Photos David St.Henry

IN THE GARDEN

In our garden at Mt. Cotton in Redland City, south-east Queensland, during March,

2015, a vibrant, female Joseph’s Coat Moth attracted our attention as it feasted on the

blossoms of the popular exotic Orange

Jessamine (Murraya paniculata).

I later observed her laying eggs on a

Cayratia clematidea vine, a known

native food plant. She returned

frequently over a number of days to

repeat the process. I was blessed to be

able to watch this process very closely

as she deposited each single, creamy-

yellow egg, usually beneath fresh new

erowth on the vine.

I was even more delighted to discover a

newly hatched caterpillar some time Cayratia clematidea - Photo Peter Hendry

later. Having Erica Siegel visit and

photograph this tiny creature answered my queries regarding the appearance of the

first instar caterpillar. It was all of 3 mm long!

Its progress was checked daily, along with other caterpillars, as they feasted on the

soft leaves or rested beneath leaves in their characteristic way, with their heads tucked

under their bodies.

As they rapidly grew I watched for the gradual colour change that signals maturity,

when the white stripes turn orange. At this stage the caterpillars leave the vine and

begin, what appears to be, aimless wandering. It was also noted that some caterpillars

matured at a much larger size than others and I wondered if this was related to the size

differences between adult males and females.

BEDS REDS PF DE Ps PE DS De Re be Pe be De Pe bd Pe b

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 37

a RN Tt

f *~ ASI \

rs «

Final instar larva (actual length approx. 5 cm)

Photo Ross Kendall

First instar larva (actual length 3mm)

Photo Erica Siegel

Two caterpillars wandered over walls

and gardens and up and down a paperbark

tree chewing crevices, before I decided to

enclose them in a polystyrene box witha

mesh lid. They rested that night but

Pretupal final continued to wander the next day,

lava 16te Hie ignoring the curled leaves, bark and soil I

spectacular had provided. One eventually excavated a

colour change

. , . . v P/ 7 ?

A painting by , , >< 7

Lois Hughes ua ;

tunnel in the wall of the box, covering jy oe. Sr

the opening with coolite chewings (on = ” wl % f s :

31*' March). The second one chewed |

through the fly screen as it tunnelled

into the lid.

It is now 29" July as I await their

emergence. Lois Hughes

Ed: Ross Kendall adds “The pupa

changes colour in the 12 hours before it seeks a sheltered roll of a leaf or piece of bark

to spin its cocoon then pupates inside the cocoon.”

CLUB NOTICES

Logo Competition - Join us in our quest for a new logo design!

Although we just love our current logo designed by Lois Hughes, the club is looking

for a new logo that can readably be printed on new media. The new logo will be used

for promotional material, websites, the magazine and other club activities. The winner

BEDS PE DT De PE DT De Oe be Pe Re be De he bd Pe bd bg

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 38

Joseph’s Coat Moth - Photo John Hughes

will receive a book of their choice from the club to the value of $80 and the logo will

feature 1n one issue of Metamorphosis Australia with a feature article on the artist.

The criteria for the logo are: (1) Represent the club aims as per the magazine page |;

(2) Simple lines; (3) 1-2 colours only; (4) 200mm by 200mm page size; (5) An EPS

file and/or .tiff photo image of the artwork

Please note that the winning logo design will become copyright of the Club and the

design will be professionally digitised.

Send your entries to the club secretary Jill Fechner, secretary@boic.info, by

December 7, 2015. The committee will select the winning logo design.

Insect Excursion Leaders Wanted

With an increased interest in the club holding more insect activities, the club is

looking to increase the number of outings to bring together both club and community

members alike and share in the delights of the insect world. As a result we would like

to invite members to lead excursions. The types of excursions include garden walk

and talks, bush walk and talks, night light attractions, and workshops (for example

identification, photography, art) and any other ideas that you may like to offer to the

committee. An activity needs to be insect focused and can run any length of time

from one hour to a whole day or even overnight depending on your needs. The club

has a long list of interesting places to visit (and would welcome more) but needs

people to lead groups. You may also wish to consider sharing the leading of a group

with one other. The committee would be happy to help you with organisation and

connecting you with other people with similar interests to yours.

If you are interested, tempted or have any ideas please contact Alisha Steward -

alishasteward@bigpond.com.

Please note that activities need to be planned well ahead of time (we are currently

putting together a program for next year) so they can be published in the Magazine.

Please consider contacting us as soon as possible even 1f you think you can do

something next year.

If you know of any external people that would be willing to lead insect excursions

please let us know or give them our contact details.

BUTTERFLY AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES CLUB PROGRAMME

Planning and General Meeting

What: Our planning meetings are informative and interesting. As well as

planning our activities we share lots of information. All members are

welcome as this activity is also a general meeting of members.

We are endeavouring to contact local landowners to gain permission to walk

through their properties after the meeting. We will advise you of the details,

via email, when we have finalised arrangements. (cont. over page)

BEDS PE PS PE DS Pe De pe Pe be Pe Pe Pe Pe pe Pe bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 39

When: 7 November 2015 from 10 am

Where: Jacobs Well Environmental Education Centre, 843 Jacobs Well - Pimpama

Road, Norwell, Queensland

Who: All members are welcome

RSVP: Marie-Louise on 0422 970 184 or email nabid@aapt.net.au

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 in 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 Elaine Allison who provided the cover painting

e Daphne Bowden who works on layout, production and distribution

e John Moss and Peter Hendry 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 — Planning and General Meeting — 7" November 2015

BEDS PE PS PE DT Pe Re Oe Pe be Pe Pe De Pe pe Pe bd Pe

Magazine of the Butterfly and Other Invertebrates Club #78 — Page 40