Some Moths That Need ID (Part 2)...

[Psyche]

No. 6. Spilosoma hypogopa. Some authors assign it to Spilarctia, as Spilarctia hypogopa.
Family Erebidae, Arctiinae. Arctidae is now a subfamily of Erebidae.

Very variable markings, (eg. FW bands may be minimal) but recognised by pale creamy antennae & prominent dark spots along the lower margin of forewing.
Note black legs.
Perfect matches from Singapore.
http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/nis/bulletin2...nis187-193.pdf

TL Seow :Cheers.

[Lanzz]

Thanks again Dr Seow for more ID...

2, 3, 4, 6, 7 CLEAR...

[Psyche]

No 9. Most likely Perixera argentosa. Geometridae, Sterrhinae.
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-10...biini_6_20.php

There are three similar species in which the large HW silvery spot may be heavily blackened.
The other two, P. monetaria & argyromma are montane.
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-10...biini_6_19.php
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-10...mbiini_6_1.php

ID Correction.
It looks like it should be P. argyromma.
The irregualr fascia (bands) on the forewing matches; note that on the HW runs very close around the blackened spot ,different from that of P. argentosa.

TL Seow :Cheers.

[Psyche]

No. 5. A Tortricid moth likely subfamily Olethreutinae.

Here is a similar example.
http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.co...micanella.html

TL Seow:Cheers.

[Psyche]

No. 8. Poeta quadrinotata. Erebidae, Erebinae, Catocalini.

The FW mid-margin black spot is characteristic of Poeta.
A 2nd smaller species P. denotalis have a 2nd mid margin black spot on the HW.
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-15...ousvi_22_1.php

TL Seow:Cheers.

[Psyche]

No. 1. should be Arctornis plumbacea. Erebidae, subfamily Lymantriinae.

I have thought all Arctornis are white & rest with wings flat, but the smaller ones rest as such.
In this posture & angle of shot the wingshape is distorted & the FW apex appeared very rounded off.

Although the image in MoB is low-res & poor, the description & colour matched well.
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-5/...ithini_1_6.php

TL Seow :Cheers.
PS. 5 is too difficult. 10,000+ spp. of Tortricidae.
Note Clothes moths Tineidae have different headend & wingshape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tineidae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_clothes_moth

[Lanzz]

Thanks Dr Seow for all the answers...

[Psyche]

Four species of Hippotion are very similar & easily confused.

H. echeclus. FW with outer & lower margins relatively straight ; abdomen with stronger gold band; FW pale band diffuse & dark band poor.
http://tpittaway.tripod.com/china/h_ech.htm

H. rafflesii. FW margins relatively straight ;abdomen ?stronger gold band: FW bands better defined, the dark band broader.
http://tpittaway.tripod.com/china/h_raf.htm

H. boerhaviae. FW with margins strongly convex(outer margin) or excavated(lower margin); abdomen bands poor; FW bands better defined, the dark band broad.
http://tpittaway.tripod.com/china/h_boe.htm

H. rosetta. FW with margins strongly convex /excavated; abdomen bands poor; FW bands lees well-defined, dark band narrow..
There is a dark FW shading anteriorly but this also seem to be present to some extent in H. boerhaviae, though not stated as such.
http://tpittaway.tripod.com/china/h_ros.htm
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-3/...gidae_29_5.php

TL Seow

[Lanzz]

It is a very useful information...

So, no. 3 is Hippotion rosetta right? At the first time, i though it is H. rafflesii or H. boerhaviae.
- http://www.projectnoah.org/spottings/128266031

[Psyche]

It is a very useful information...

So, no. 3 is Hippotion rosetta right? At the first time, i though it is H. rafflesii or H. boerhaviae.
- http://www.projectnoah.org/spottings/128266031

Yes it is H. rosetta.

The two, H. echeclus & H. rafflesii can be discounted by their relatively straight outer & lower margins .

H. rosetta & boerhaviae are readily confused.
The FW margins of H. rosetta is stated to be more pronounced than H. boerhaviae, but very difficult to judge.
Note the FW pale band (with several parallel lines) is poorly defined & the dark band is narrow, compared to that of H. boerhaviae.

I included this clarification because I noticed someone have ID'ed it as H. boerhaviae on the website.

TL Seow
PS. An example of the confusion between H. rosetta & boerhaviae.
This normally reliable Australian site have it wrong. The poorly defined FW bands & strong dark shading(not always present) are typical H. rosetta.
http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.co...i/boerhav.html