Product Code Database
Example Keywords: gran turismo -water $46-190
   » » Wiki: Hepialidae
Tag Wiki 'Hepialidae'.
Tag
20%

The Hepialidae are a family of in the order. Moths of this family are often referred to as swift moths or ghost moths.


Taxonomy and systematics
The Hepialidae constitute by far the most diverse group of the . The 82 genera contain at least 700 currently recognised species of these primitive worldwide.John R. Grehan, Carlos G.C. Mielke, John R.G. Turner, and John E. Nielsen. 2023. A revised world catalogue of Ghost Moths (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) with taxonomic and biological annotations. ZooNova 28: 1-313 The genera Fraus ( to ), (), (), and () are considered to be the most primitive, containing four genera and about 51 species with a mostly relictual southern distribution and are currently separated from the Hepialidae sensu stricto which might form a natural, group.John R. Grehan, Carlos G.C. Mielke, John R.G. Turner, and John E. Nielsen. 2023. A revised world catalogue of Ghost Moths (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) with taxonomic and biological annotations. ZooNova 28: 1-313 The most diverse genera are with 78 species, with 78 species, and with 80 species following a comprehensive catalogue of Exoporia.<1>] The relationships of the many genera are not yet well established; see below for an ordered synonymic generic checklist, and the Taxobox for navigation.


Morphology and identification
The family Hepialidae is considered to be very primitive, with a number of structural differences to other moths including very short antennae and the lack of a functional or frenulum (see Kristensen, 1999: 61–62 for details).Kristensen, N.P., (1999). The non-Glossatan Moths. Ch. 4, pp. 41–62 in Kristensen, N.P. (Ed.). Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Volume 1: Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Handbook of Zoology. A Natural History of the phyla of the Animal Kingdom. Band / Volume IV Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband / Part 35: 491 pp. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. Like other Exoporia the is transferred to the egg by an external channel between the ostium and the . Other non moths have a common . The moths are homoneurous with similar forewings and hindwings, and are sometimes included as 'honorary' members of the , though archaic they are. Strictly speaking, they are too basal and constitute , although hepialids range from very small moths to a wingspan record of 250 mm in . Because of their sometimes large size and striking colour patterns, they have received more popular and taxonomic attention than most "micros". Many species display strong sexual dimorphism, with males smaller but more boldly marked than females, or at high , females of and show "brachypterous" wing reduction.


Distribution
Hepialidae are distributed on ancient landmasses worldwide except but with the surprising exceptions of , the islands and in Africa, tropical . It remains to be borne out if these absences are real as was not long ago discovered in .This source is no longer available In the and regions hepialids have diversified in rainforest environments, but this not apparently the case in the . Hepialids mostly have low dispersive powers and do not occur on oceanic islands with the exception of Phassodes on and and a few species in and . Whilst the type locality of Eudalaca sanctahelena is from the remote island of , this is thought to be an error for South Africa.


Behaviour
Swift moths are usually and some species form leks, also thought to have arisen independently in the genus (). In most genera, males fly swiftly to virgin females that are calling with scent. In other genera, virgin females "assemble" upwind to displaying males, which emit a from scales on the tibiae. In such cases of sex role reversal, there may be visual cues also: males of the European are possibly the most frequently noticed species, being white, ghostly and conspicuous when forming a at dusk. Sometimes they hover singly as if suspended from a thread or flying in a figure of eight motion. The chemical structures of some have been analysed.


Biology
The female does not lay its eggs in a specific location but scatters ("broadcasts") them while in flight, sometimes in huge numbers (29,000 were recorded from a single female , which is presumably a world record for the Lepidoptera). The maggot-like feed in a variety of ways. Probably all have concealed larvae, making silken tunnels in all manner of substrates. Some species feed on leaf litter, , , decaying vegetation, , and a wide span of and plants. There is very little evidence of hostplant specialisation; whilst the South African species is restricted to the tree Virgilia capensis this may be a case of "ecological ". A few feed on foliage (the austral 'oxyacanine' genera which may drag foliage into their feeding tunnel: Nielsen et al., 2000: 825). Most feed underground on fine , at least in early and some then feed internally in tunnels in the stem or trunk of their hostplants. Root-feeding larvae travelling through soil make silk-lined tunnels. Before pupating they make a vertical tunnel, which can be up to 10 cm deep, with an exit close to the ground surface.H. Buser, W.Huber and R. Joos 2000 Hepialidae – Wurzelbohrer. Pp. 61-96 in Schmetterlinge und ihre Lebensräume. Band 3. Pro Natura, Basel. The pupae can then climb up and down to adjust to changes in temperature and flooding. Before the adult moth emerges, the pupa protrudes half way out at the ground surface. The pupa has rows of dorsal spines on the abdominal segments as in other lower members of the .


Economic significance
Chinese medicine makes considerable use of the "mummies" collected of the -attacking fungi Ophiocordyceps sinensis, and these can form an expensive ingredient. The (which are sometimes hepialid larvae) is a popular food source especially among aboriginal Australians. In and , hepialid larvae are also eaten. However, some species of , , , and are considered pests of pastures in Australia, New Zealand, and South America.


Phylogeny
The Hepialidae were identified as having primitive wing venation by John Henry Comstock (1893). In his study of Evolution of the Wings of Insects he shows that the fore and hind wings of Sthenopis (Hepialus) argenteomaculatus maintain a five branched radius while in the remainder of the Lepidoptera the hind wing radius is merged into one vein. This identifies the Hepialidae as a primitive relict of primitive wing venation.


Faunas

Fauna of Europe
Source and identificationChinery, M. (1986). Collins Guide to the Insects of Britain and Western Europe. (Reprinted 1991)Skinner, B. (1984). Colour Identification Guide to Moths of the British Isles


Generic checklist
  • Fraus Walker, 1856
    • = Hectomanes Meyrick, 1980
    • = Praus; Pagenstacher, 1909
  • Hübner, 1820
    • = Garzorycta; Hübner, 1826
    • = Gazoryctes; Kirby, 1892
  • Nielsen and Scoble, 1986
  • Janse, 1942
    • = Ptycholoma; Felder, 1874
  • Chus and Wang, 1985
  • Hampson, 1893
    • = Palpiphorus; Quail, 1900
    • = Palpiphora; Pagenstacher, 1909
  • Viette, 1950
    • = Eudalacina Paclt, 1953
  • Hübner, 1820
    • = Gorcopis; Walker, 1856
  • Janse, 1942
  • Walker, 1856
    • = Huapina Bryk, 1945
    • = Maculella Viette, 1950
    • = Toenga Tindale, 1954
  • Butler, 1882
    • = Stachyocera Ureta, 1957
  • Nielsen, Robinson & Wagner, 2000
    • = Blanchardina Viette, 1950, nec Labbe, 1899
  • Nielsen and Robinson, 1983
  • Viette, 1951
  • Viette, 1949
    • = Lossbergiana Viette, 1951
  • Nielsen and Robinson, 1983
  • Viette, 1949
  • Le Cerf, 1919
  • Walker, 1856
  • Viette, 1950
  • Viette, 1953
  • Viette, 1952
  • Cibyra Walker, 1856
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1950)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1952)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1951)
  • Cibyra ( ) Herrich-Schäffer, 1858
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1951)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1950)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1952)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1951)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1951)
  • Cibyra ( Cibyra Walker, 1856)
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1952)
  • Cibyra ( Felder, 1874)
    • = Pseudophassus Pfitzner, 1914
    • = Parana Viette, 1950
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1951)
  • Cibyra ( Kirby, 1892)
    • = Philaenia auctt.
  • Cibyra ( Viette, 1951)
  • Viette, 1961
  • Viette, 1950
  • auctt., nec Walker, 1856
  • Viette, 1951
  • Dumbleton, 1966
    • = Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1966
  • Triodia
    • = Alphus Wallengren, 1869, nec Dejean, 1833
  • Börner, 1920
  • Hübner, 1820
  • Viette, 1968
    • = Forkalus Chu and Wang, 1985
  • Wallengren, 1869
    • = Hepiolopsis Börner, 1920
    • = Phimatopus; auctt.
  • auctt. nec Wallengren, 1869
  • Fabricius, 1775
    • = Hepiolus Illiger, 1801
    • = Epialus Agassiz, 1847
    • = Epiolus Agassiz, 1847
    • = Tephus Wallengren, 1869
    • = Trepialus; Latreille, 1805
  • Tindale, 1941
  • auctt. nec Packard, 1865
  • ; Felder, 1874
    • = Endoclyta, Felder, 1875
    • = Hypophassus, Le Cerf, 1919
    • = Nevina, Tindale, 1941
    • = Sahyadrassus, Tindale, 1941
    • = Procharagia, Viette, 1949
  • Viette, 1948
  • Walker, 1856
    • = Perissectis Meyrick, 1890
    • = Pericentris; Pagenstacher, 1909
    • = Zauxieus Viette, 1952
    • = Theaxieus Viette, 1952
  • Jeana Tindale, 1935
  • Dumbleton, 1966
  • Viette, 1961
    • = Porina Walker, 1956, nec d'Orbigny, 1852
    • = Gorina; Quail, 1899
    • = Goryna; Quail, 1899
    • = Philpottia Viette, 1950, nec Broun, 1915
  • Dugdale, 1994
  • ; auctt
    • = Trioxycanus Dumbleton, 1966
  • Dumbleton, 1966
  • Chu and Wang, 1985
  • Hampson, 1893
  • Viette, 1950
  • Viette, 1953
  • Herrich-Schäffer, 1858
    • = Charagia Walker, 1856
    • = Phloiopsyche Scott, 1864
    • = Oenetus; Kirby, 1892
    • = Choragia; Pagenstacher, 1909
    • = Oenetes; Oke, 1953
  • Leto Hübner, 1820
    • = Ecto; Pagenstacher, 1909
  • Scott, 1869
    • = Xylopsyche Swainson, 1851
    • = Leto; auctt
    • = Oncoptera Walker, 1890
    • = Paroncopera Tindale, 1933
    • = Onchopera; Birket-Smith, 1974
    • = Onchoptera; Birket-Smith, 1974
  • Meyrick, 1890
  • Tindale, 1932
    • = Bordaja; Chu and Wang, 1985
  • Herrich-Schäffer, 1858
    • = Pielus Walker, 1856
    • = Rhizopsyche Scott, 1864
  • Walker, 1856
    • = Porina Walker, 1856
    • = Gorina; Quail, 1899
    • = Goryna; Quail, 1899
    • = Paraoxyxanus Viette, 1950
  • Bethune-Baker, 1905


Cited literature
  • Comstock, J.H., (1893). Evolution of the Wings of Insects. The Wilder Quarter Century Book, Ithaca, NY.
  • Kristensen, N.P., (1999). The non-Glossatan Moths. Ch. 4, pp. 41–62 in Kristensen, N.P. (Ed.). Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Volume 1: Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Handbook of Zoology. A Natural History of the phyla of the Animal Kingdom. Band / Volume IV Arthropoda: Insecta Teilband / Part 35: 491 pp. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
  • Nielsen, E.S., Robinson, G.S. and Wagner, D.L. 2000. Ghost-moths of the world: a global inventory and bibliography of the Exoporia (Mnesarchaeoidea and Hepialoidea) (Lepidoptera) Journal of Natural History, 34(6): 823–878.


External links

Page 1 of 1
1
Post Comment
Font Size...
Font Family...
Font Format...

Page 1 of 1
1

Account

Social:
Pages:  ..   .. 
Items:  .. 

Navigation

General: Atom Feed Atom Feed  .. 
Help:  ..   .. 
Category:  ..   .. 
Media:  ..   .. 
Posts:  ..   ..   .. 

Statistics

Page:  .. 
Summary:  .. 
1 Tags
10/10 Page Rank
5 Page Refs
1s Time