A geometrid?

[Painted Jezebel]

This moth paid me a visit last night. Strange, I live out in the country, but I get very few moths coming to the outside lights (only seen two in 2 months). Anyway, this one has the shape of, and size of the common European geometrid , Ourapteryx sambucaria (The Swallow-tailed moth). Any ideas anyone?

Les
Delias Rule, OK

[hkmoths]

Hi Les,

This is Urapteroides astheniata

Uraniidae, Uraniinae

More info available at the Moths of Borneo website.
http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-8/...niinae_2_1.php

cheers,

Roger.

[Painted Jezebel]

Thanks Roger, you're a STAR! It would have taken me days going through the website looking for it, only knowing the superfamily.

Les
Delias Rule, OK

[hkmoths]

Hi Les,

Simply got lucky on this one. Sometimes I can spend ages looking too, even on the Hong Kong macros I occasionally come up against a brick wall and have to send photos or even specimens to those who know a lot more than me (or at least have access to the big collections on a regular basis!).

cheers,

Roger.

[atronox]

This moth is in Uraniinae but the subf. is MICRONIINAE.

[hkmoths]

This moth is in Uraniinae but the subf. is MICRONIINAE.

Aaron, please could you quote the reference you obtained the information for the subfamily placement, please. I based my reply on Holloway's Moths of Borneo, which is pretty authoritative in most peoples' view. If you know of anything more recent that sheds light on this, I'm all ears! (so to speak).

cheers,

Roger.

[Silverstreak]

Roger,

I have prompted him here.

[atronox]

Aaron, please could you quote the reference you obtained the information for the subfamily placement, please. I based my reply on Holloway's Moths of Borneo, which is pretty authoritative in most peoples' view. If you know of anything more recent that sheds light on this, I'm all ears! (so to speak).

cheers,

Roger.

The subfamily microniinae is duller than the subfamily uraniinae, usually being black or white.

[hkmoths]

The subfamily microniinae is duller than the subfamily uraniinae, usually being black or white.

Hey Aaron,

If this is the case then why isn't Lyssa zampa in Microniinae? - it's black grey and white!

More seriously, though...
Taxonomy of Lepidoptera is not just based on external characters of a moth or butterfly's form (morphology). The internal structures, especially genitalia, and at a molecular level, the DNA, provide characters that show the relatedness (phylogeny) of one species to another.
To use Microniinae and Uraniinae as the example, take a look at Jeremy Holloway's descriptions of the key characters that are unique to each of these subfamilies in his descriptions of them in his Moths of Borneo series. I will normally accept such information because I know that he (and other similarly experienced scientists) have taken a rigorous approach that can be repeated by fellow workers, who will usually arrive at the same conclusion independently (or not, though this is rarely the case).
Science is all about asking questions and trying to find answers to these question. Just accepting someone else's statement without that statement being backed up by evidence that has been thoroughly and critically tested is poor science, actually it's unreasonable. To be scientific, one has to accept that one's ideas will be challanged, and if shown to be wrong then one learns from it and moves forward. Stubbornly clinging on to a belief that is clearly wrong is unacceptable - however, stubbornly clinging on to a good idea that the results show is correct, even when others around you say otherwise (without proving it) is also good science - without it we would never have heard of Darwin, Copernicus, Gallileo . . . (to name but a few) ... these are people who strove against adversity when they could not ignore the facts that the results of their methodical observations told.

Stay curious, keep asking questions.

cheers,

Roger.

[atronox]

Hey Aaron,

If this is the case then why isn't Lyssa zampa in Microniinae? - it's black grey and white!

More seriously, though...
Taxonomy of Lepidoptera is not just based on external characters of a moth or butterfly's form (morphology). The internal structures, especially genitalia, and at a molecular level, the DNA, provide characters that show the relatedness (phylogeny) of one species to another.
To use Microniinae and Uraniinae as the example, take a look at Jeremy Holloway's descriptions of the key characters that are unique to each of these subfamilies in his descriptions of them in his Moths of Borneo series. I will normally accept such information because I know that he (and other similarly experienced scientists) have taken a rigorous approach that can be repeated by fellow workers, who will usually arrive at the same conclusion independently (or not, though this is rarely the case).
Science is all about asking questions and trying to find answers to these question. Just accepting someone else's statement without that statement being backed up by evidence that has been thoroughly and critically tested is poor science, actually it's unreasonable. To be scientific, one has to accept that one's ideas will be challanged, and if shown to be wrong then one learns from it and moves forward. Stubbornly clinging on to a belief that is clearly wrong is unacceptable - however, stubbornly clinging on to a good idea that the results show is correct, even when others around you say otherwise (without proving it) is also good science - without it we would never have heard of Darwin, Copernicus, Gallileo . . . (to name but a few) ... these are people who strove against adversity when they could not ignore the facts that the results of their methodical observations told.

Stay curious, keep asking questions.

cheers,

Roger.

Yes, i have accepted the fact that i am wrong. Should start reading more! Thx Roger.