Aethiophysa invisalis (4877? 4878?)

Aethiophysa invisalis

Family Crambidae, subfamily Glaphyriinae

Photograph copyright by Tony Leukering

5 July 2012

Near Whitesboro

CMMP block S07

Distribution map or distribution map

In my experience and opinion, there are two primary aspects of insect identification that scare off hobbyists from becoming seriously interested. The first (not necessarily the most important) is the lack of widely accepted common or English names for most species, once one gets out of the butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies, tiger beetles, and orthopterans (grasshoppers, crickets, katydids) and even including these groups in much of the world outside northern Europe and the U. S. and Canada. The second reason is the uncertainty of identification in groups with incredible numbers of species, many or most of which are very similar to each other and a large portion of which require close study of minutiae and, particularly, structure of sex characters. As example, the Kaufman insect guide notes that there are some 870 species of syrphid flies (Syrphidae) and that that family accounts for only about 1/20 of the 17,000+ species of flies known from North America north of Mexico. Of course, that's "known," which does not necessarily mean that that is all there are; in fact, there are almost certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of species awaiting description or, even, finding.

But, of course, this is a blog about moths, so I'll get back to the subject "species." When I first noted the subject of this essay's picture at Steve Bauer's house near Whitesboro, I knew that I had not seen the species and figured it for one of the horde of crambids (there are lot of species with triangular wings and that perch head-down in two dimensions), most of which are not illustrated in the Beadle and Leckie field guide. I rummaged around among similar crambids on the Moth Photographer's Guide (MPG) and found two species that looked very much like this beast. Unfortunately, I could not find any particular feature that separated those two species. On the record of known occurrences, I figured that the first one (Aethiophysa invisalis 4877) was the more likely of the two species to occur in New Jersey (though neither had, apparently, been recorded here). So, I submitted the above picture to both MPG and to the Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA) website as the first county and state record of that species. While there has been no action on the photo at Bug Guide, which is the portal for records addition to MPG, the picture was accepted as proof of occurrence by BAMONA. However, it was accepted as Aethiophysa lentiflualis, not as Aethiophysa invisalis.

That gave me pause. Since BAMONA does not apparently utilize Hodges numbers, I cannot compare Hodges numbers between the two sites. Also, since neither site explains the nomenclatural differences and because a brief internet search got me nowhere in discovering the causes of the differences, I do not know, really, what species to which this beast is referable and why MPG does not use lentiflualis and why BAMONA does not use either invisalis nor consimilis (the other species name on MPG). Apparently, the two sites are following different authorities, but if there had been a lumping, there should be some shared name, not completely different names. So, I have no real clue what has gone on with that genus; perhaps, someone will comment with the solution.

So, we come to the real gist of this essay: uncertainty. In the birding world, given reasonable views, virtually every individual bird can be identified by those with strong skills in that vein. Thus, birders take for granted that, though an individual birder may not be able to identify an individual bird, s/he is certain that someone can make the ID. In the insect world, that is just not the case, particularly without a specimen to study. That uncertainty leads to many enthusiasts giving up on various insect groups, including moths. But, as one might have expected from the fact that I have established this blog, I would encourage those with an interest to stick to it and accept the fact that you will have a higher percentage of unknown beasts (a very much higher percentage) than you would were you a birder with a relatively similar knowledge set. And, if you had given up on moths previously in your life, give it a second chance. We know a lot more, now, about distribution than we did even a decade ago, and there are more and more-comprehensive ID resources out there than, again, even a decade ago.