Cat ID Assistance please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atronox

Yup, its Daphnis nerii. Deilephila is the elephant hawkmoth (deilephila elpenor).

---

Thanks Aaron for your info

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commander

Thread moved to Moth Photography sub-forum.

These cats eat Oleander, Vinca (Periwinkle) and a number of other "toxic" plants. I believe Adenium is also a "toxic" plant too.

However, the cats and adult moths don't seem to be immune to predators because of this, unlike those of butterflies. :thinking:

---

Thanks Commander for doing the needful.

Oh yes, the sap of the Adenium obesum is toxic. Got to handle them with caution especially when you are doing pruning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atronox

Yup, its Daphnis nerii. Deilephila is the elephant hawkmoth (deilephila elpenor).

---

Indeed the Elephant Hawkmoth is placed in Deilephila, as was nerii until quite recently.

One must remember that as yet higher taxonomy, i.e. understanding lineage, has been a rather haphazard process, and in reality still is, even with the advent of molecular techniques. Most analyses undertaken do not involve the complete range of species within a particular group, whether it be the genus, subtribe, tribe or even higher ranks, simply due to the numbers of species involved and their distributions being such that it becomes almost impossible to obtain sufficient material to undertake a complete analysis. The end result is that stability in Lepidopteran taxonomy has yet to be achieved, even for relatively well known groups like the Sphingidae.

cheers, Roger.

Thanks for the info Roger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkmoths

Indeed the Elephant Hawkmoth is placed in Deilephila, as was nerii until quite recently.

One must remember that as yet higher taxonomy, i.e. understanding lineage, has been a rather haphazard process, and in reality still is, even with the advent of molecular techniques. Most analyses undertaken do not involve the complete range of species within a particular group, whether it be the genus, subtribe, tribe or even higher ranks, simply due to the numbers of species involved and their distributions being such that it becomes almost impossible to obtain sufficient material to undertake a complete analysis. The end result is that stability in Lepidopteran taxonomy has yet to be achieved, even for relatively well known groups like the Sphingidae.

cheers, Roger.

---

Thx Roger. Even groups like macrolepidoptera and microlepidoptera are poorly defined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atronox

Thx Roger. Even groups like macrolepidoptera and microlepidoptera are poorly defined.

---

Technically, these two terms have no taxonomic standing whatsoever. It is a convenient grouping that separates the more primitive families from the more recently evolved families, the dividing line generally falling at the Pyraloidea (considered microleps, though given "honorary" macrolep status as in many cases they are larger than a good number of "macros", such as the smaller lithosiines, eublemmines, most eustrotiines, Micronoctuidae and most eupitheciines). The Hepialoidea, Zygaenoidea and Cossoidea are also primitive taxa that would fall under the microlep group, though most moth-ers regard them as honorary macros as well. There are so many exceptions, that in reality I think it is confusing to keep using the macro / micro split.

cheers, Roger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkmoths

Technically, these two terms have no taxonomic standing whatsoever. It is a convenient grouping that separates the more primitive families from the more recently evolved families, the dividing line generally falling at the Pyraloidea (considered microleps, though given "honorary" macrolep status as in many cases they are larger than a good number of "macros", such as the smaller lithosiines, eublemmines, most eustrotiines, Micronoctuidae and most eupitheciines). The Hepialoidea, Zygaenoidea and Cossoidea are also primitive taxa that would fall under the microlep group, though most moth-ers regard them as honorary macros as well. There are so many exceptions, that in reality I think it is confusing to keep using the macro / micro split.

cheers, Roger.

---

Come to think of it, it seems that they are not split according to size as the terms suggest bt rather whether they are monorysian or ditrysian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atronox

Come to think of it, it seems that they are not split according to size as the terms suggest bt rather whether they are monorysian or ditrysian.

---

This isn't the split used either - as I said the terms macrolepidoptera and microlepidoptera don't hold any water. They are terms of convenience.
Monotrysia and Ditrysia are formal taxonomic names that also don't hold water, as Monotrysia is a polyphyletic group (see Scoble, 1992: pp190-191), and consequently has fallen into a state of relative disuse.
The "Monotrysia" comprise the superfamilies up to Tischerioidea.

cheers, Roger.

Scoble, M.J., 1992. The Lepidoptera: Form, Function & Diversity. Oxford University Press. xi + 404 pp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkmoths

This isn't the split used either - as I said the terms macrolepidoptera and microlepidoptera don't hold any water. They are terms of convenience.
Monotrysia and Ditrysia are formal taxonomic names that also don't hold water, as Monotrysia is a polyphyletic group (see Scoble, 1992: pp190-191), and consequently has fallen into a state of relative disuse.
The "Monotrysia" comprise the superfamilies up to Tischerioidea.

cheers, Roger.

Scoble, M.J., 1992. The Lepidoptera: Form, Function & Diversity. Oxford University Press. xi + 404 pp.

---

Checking wiki...
Thx Roger.

Please take great care before relying too much on Wikipedia. Anyone can post entries, and they are not checked or verified or updated. There are many out of date, or incorrect entries there.