Community Science

You don’t need to be a professional scientist to appreciate moths -- moths can be enjoyed for their beauty and diversity alone. Much of what we know about moths has, in fact, come from amateur naturalists, whose study of moths was done mainly out of fascination with this kaleidiscopic group of animals rather than pursuit of scientific knowledge as such (see William Leach’s Butterfly People, which also includes Moth People). Even today, professional biologists who specialize on moths are quite rare (and getting rarer). Much of what we are still learning about moths, particularly those associated with natural habitats, comes from a new generation of dedicated naturalists, now often called community scientists.

The two pursuits – avocational and scientific – are not mutually exclusive. We hope that this website – along with several others devoted to moths and other insects (see the list included in the Identification Guide) – will support the growing interest in this important group of species. Our project, however, does have a serious intent: using information about the distribution and habitats of moths obtained through this website to help guide the conservation of moths and native biodiversity more generally. Conservation projects are, in fact, ideally suited for community science, for two main reasons:

• Community science projects can provide a solid base of evidence for making conservation decisions, acquiring information on a larger number of species and covering more dates and sites than can be done by just a few researchers conducting a limited number of formal surveys. Establishing a broad foundation for determining species’ abundances, distributions, habitat associations, and potential threats is important for any group of species but is especially important for making a case for the conservation of moths and other obscure or poorly appreciated groups of species.
• They also help establish a wide base of public support. Conservation depends critically on the values placed by humans on the natural world, but these values are often very poorly known or perceived or are otherwise not considered very important by the general public. In deciding how to allocate the scarce resources available for the conservation of biodiversity, it cannot be just scientists who take an interest in these decisions; it requires the concerted effort of a significant, well informed, and strongly interested group of citizens willing to stand up on behalf of Nature.

Such projects are now easier to accomplish than ever before. Only a few basic pieces of equipment are needed: a light source or bait used to attract moths to a place where they can be easily observed; a camera capable of taking close-up photographs, usually coupled with a flash unit for use in dim light; and a computer, used for photo editing, moth identification, and record sharing via the Web. Once you have a photo of a moth stored in your computer, you are ready to enter your first record, joining us in this important endeavor!

Submitting a Record

Before submitting a record, read Terms of Use/Privacy Statement. Our intention is to make the information gathered in the website as widely available as we can make it. We therefore follow the guidelines established for Fair Use of published materials, although we also make provisions for anyone who would like to have stronger copyright recognition for the photographs they submit.

To send us a record, click on Submit a Public Record on the menu located on the left side of the Home Page. Only records of reliably identified species serve the interests of this project to document the distribution, natural history, and conservation status of the moths of North Carolina. To make the record most useful for these purposes, we therefore require that certain information be filled in, as indicated in red text on the form.

Species Name

The submitter needs to take the initial step in trying to identify the species the record represents. This helps the submitter learn more about the identification process (and its problems). It also helps us process the records more quickly. For help in establishing this preliminary identification, click on the Identification Guide located on the menu at the top of the Home Page. Although this initial identification does not have to be completely accurate – we will vet the photograph or other evidence as part of the acceptance process – the more precise it is, the faster we can process the submission. Conversely, records that require more time and effort on the part of our reviewers are likely to be delayed in acceptance, sometimes (we regret to say) indefinitely.

Identity of the Observer

The name of the person must be included and an email address where the submitter can be reached; we do not accept any records from anonymous or otherwise unverifiable sources. Only the observer’s name will show up in the species accounts, not the email address, which will be used only to notify the submitter concerning the status of their record (see Vetting Process below); it will not be shared with anyone outside of the website group without permission from the submitter.

Date and Location of the Record

For the record to be useful to us, we require information on the date and location of the observation. The date for records of adults will be used to compile the flight charts, with one record per site per location per night used for that purpose. Locations for all records – adults or immatures – will be used to fill in the distribution maps displayed for the species. Although only the counties will show up in the public display on the website, we need more accurate locational information to help identify sites of particular conservation interest as well as to help identity the habitat and landscape context where the record was made. The exact location of the observation can – preferably – be entered through use of the mapping tool included on the form or through direct entry of coordinates (in decimal degrees) obtained from a GPS unit. We would also like the name of the site to be included, if identifiable (e.g., a town or nature preserve), along with any descriptive subunit (e.g., neighborhood name, street address or location along a road, or topographic location – e.g., floodplain or ridgetop)..

Number of Individuals; Methods of Observation; Life Stages

The abundance of a species is usually one of the main factors in determining its conservation status – the less abundant the species, the higher its presumed risk and hence the higher its priority for protection. However, the number of moths seen at a particular time and place varies widely, depending on weather conditions, phase of the moon, timing of the life cycle of the particular species, and the methods used for the observations. We are particularly interested in the effects due to the type of observation method, e.g., bait vs. lights, blacklights vs. mercury-vapor lights, searching for larvae vs. adults. While not required – we will enter a single individual as a default if no estimates of numbers are recorded – either exact counts of the individuals seen at a given time or estimates (for observations above 5 individuals) can help us determine the detectability of a given species using a particular method. This is information that we summarize in the Species Accounts under Methods of Observation. Along with the flight charts, distribution maps, and habitat information, we hope this will be useful in planning how to look for particular species.

Where several methods were used, or where both immatures and adults were recorded at the same time and place, enter records separately for each category, each with an estimate of the number of individuals observed.

Habitat

Gathering information on the habitats used by moth species is one of the most important goals of this project. We use this information to help determine the ecological and conservation needs of the species. We also regard as one of our main missions to acquaint the public about the diversity of habitats we have in North Carolina and how each one plays a role in sustaining our native biodiversity.

The habitats listed on the entry form are simplified, our hope being that most people will be able to identify them; a description of each habitat type can be seen by clicking on the name of the habitat. We also invite the submitters to provide additional information about the habitats, including the presence of host plants used by the moth species, in the Comments section. For experienced observers, we recommend using the more detailed vegetation categories described in the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990; Schafale, 2012).

More than one habitat type can be selected. Since moths observed at lights or bait are often drawn in from distance of 100 yards or more, we ask that all habitat types within that radius be recorded.

Comments

The Comments section is optional but can be used to record information about habitat, host plants used by larvae, predator-prey interactions, or other behavioral or ecological features of interest.

Adding the Photograph

Photographs provide the basis for documenting a record and must be included as part of all submissions (records from specimens obtained from surveys conducted by expert Lepidopterists are recorded through a separate process). As noted in the Species Accounts, however, some species cannot be identified based on photographs alone; records entered for species flagged as requiring specimens as the basis for a record (see Adult ID in the Identification panel) will not be accepted. Where a specimen of such species has, in fact, been collected, contact the Moth Website Group at Moths_of_NC_Website@outlook.com for further information.

Attach your photograph by browsing to the file where it is stored on your computer, opening the file by clicking the name or image, and then clicking on the Open button shown at the bottom of the form window. Usually only one photograph should be entered per species per site per date, but up to three shots can be entered, showing a given individual from different angles or several individuals displaying a range of variation in pattern or other features.

Completion of the Form

Following the Security Check and acceptance of the Terms of Use at the bottom of the form, clicking the Submit button will enter the completed record.

Vetting Process

Once a record has been submitted, the proposed identification is reviewed by our team of experts to confirm its accuracy. This vetting is based partly on the long experience of our group members with moth identification but also on the availability of reliable keys and other diagnostic information in the scientific literature. For macro-moths, such information is available for nearly all taxonomic groups and species (although subject to change depending on the discovery of new information); the references we use for this purpose are cited in the Species Accounts. For the micro-moths, on the other hand, diagnostic information is far more limited and many groups do not have diagnostic keys that represent current taxonomy.

Even where modern keys or other good taxonomic information exist, not all species have diagnostic traits that are visible in photographs; many need to be collected in order to identify them to species, making use of features that can only be seen under a microscope or that require dissection in order to be revealed. The information needed for vetting a given species will normally be included in the Identification Comments field in the Species Accounts. However, we are still in the process of compiling this information and it will take us some while to complete the process for all species occurring in the state. In the meantime, we have made an effort to categorize the evidence required for vetting. For adult moths, we use the following levels listed for Adult ID Requirements in the Species Accounts:

1. Sight records are allowed. Species in this category are all widespread and widely recognized by the public, e.g., Luna Moths. In most cases, however, a short description – e.g., “large, green moth with long tails on the hindwings” – should be included in the Comments field on the entry form.

2. Photographs are required for identification, but must be of good enough quality and taken of specimens in good condition in order to be accepted. For this category, photos of a species in its normal resting position – showing at least the dorsal surface of the forewings – provide sufficient information for vetting.

3. Photographs showing particular views are required – e.g., side views of the head, showing the palps – or additional information must be supplied, such as forewing length or the nearby presence of larval host plants or other habitat information. This category also includes species where one sex or morphological variant may be determined using photographs but others cannot. Normally, these information requirements will be explained in the Identification Comments field.

4. Specimens are required for identification. This category includes species whose diagnostic traits can only be seen under high magnification or that require dissection or that can only be determined through DNA analysis.

Currently, we have completed filling in the Adult ID Requirements for all macro-moths confirmed as occurring in the state and for all but about 150 of the micro-moths. For the micros, in particular, we have consulted with taxonomic experts for their judgements regarding vetting requirements; we are extremely grateful for their help and they are acknowledged as Special Contributors to this project in the About Us page. Similar Larval ID Requirements are under preparation but much farther from completion. Where no designations are specified, we are currently handling entries on a case-by-case basis

Records that have been vetted to the species level will be added to the Species Accounts. In the case of photos submitted for vetting level 4 species – requiring a specimen – we may place them in Genus Accounts, provided they can be determined to the genus level; the same is true for species in level 3, if insufficient information is provided to determine the individual species. In all cases where a record has been entered into the website, it will be listed under New Records as well as the Species or Genus Accounts, but no other notification will be sent to the submitter. Where the record is not accepted or where additional information is required, a message may be sent to the submitter via email.

Currently, we are able to process the records for macro-moths within a two week period (usually less). The process time for micro-moths typically takes longer.

How to Identify a Moth

This website depends on accurately identified species records, but we are primarily interested in figuring out distributions, habitat associations, and conservation status based on those records. There are several other sources that are devoted more to identification and we recommend that they be consulted first in order to come up with at least an initial identification (a preliminary species name is, in fact, required to submit a record). Once an initial identification is made, however, you may then want to consult the Species Accounts in our website for additional information on the field marks and other information that we ourselves use as standards for diagnosing a particular species. Unless otherwise stated, the terms in the species accounts that are used to describe the morphology, coloration and patterning of a species are those seen when viewing the specimen either from above or from the sides. For example, a description of the coloration of the forewing is one that applies to the upper surface of the wing and not the lower surface.

FIELD GUIDES

Two Peterson Field Guides have been published for the moths of the eastern United States, both following the same format as the original Field Guide to the Birds by RT Peterson. Identification involves matching species (or photos) to pictures in the book, with supplemental information provided on distinguishing field marks (i.e., the visual or behavioral cues that can be made out in the field), habitat, range, and seasonality.

Charles Covell’s A Field Guide to the Moths of the Eastern United States was published in 1984 (see References for publication information). Although it went out of print for a few years, it has been republished by the Virginia Museum of Natural History. It covers 1,300 species belonging to 59 families in detail (but still just a small fraction of the total number of species in our area). The taxonomy follows the 1983 Checklist of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico by Hodges et al., which was (and still is) the most authoritative list available, but which is now out of date for many taxa, with new species having been described, changes having been made to generic names, and some families merged or split (the newer version contains some of these revisions). The plates – some of which are in black-and-white – include photographs of spread specimens, having the advantage of showing the hindwings and abdomen, which for many species possess features that are critical for their identification. No maps are provided and the range information – which was fairly general to begin with -- is now out of date, with many species now recorded in North Carolina not indicated as occurring in our state. An excellent glossary of technical terms is included, along with detailed illustrations of morphological features.

The Peterson Field Guide to Moths of Southeastern North America by Seabrooke Leckie and David Beadle, published in 2018, represents a different approach to portraying moths: instead of spread specimens, it provides photos of living moths, almost all with wings folded in the natural resting posture. This has the advantage of showing the species as they are most likely observed by moth watchers or photographers, and includes postural information that may be highly characteristic of particular species. The drawback, however, is that useful information provided by the hindwing and abdomen is often hidden from view (and not mentioned in the text). All photos are large and located opposite the text for a given species, another advantage over the older field guide. The taxonomy is much more up-to-date than Covell’s, following major changes to the Noctuoidea by Lafontaine and Schmidt. With its aim of serving the interests of moth observers or photographers, the finer morphological details and technical descriptions of greater interest to collectors are not included here to any great extent, although a glossary is provided and illustrations given that cover at least the wing patterns and a few of the more easily visible morphological structures.

Caterpillars of Eastern North America by David Wagner, published in 2005, combines excellent photographs and technical descriptions that cover the larvae of most groups of macro-moths that occur in our area, plus a few of the micros (e.g., the Limacodids). Although there are more comprehensive treatments for individual families (see Technical Literature below), this is the single best source of information for moth caterpillars, covering the widest range of families and species, and is the most easily available to the public.

WEBSITES

Compared to birds, butterflies, mammals, and other groups that have been very successfully treated in field guides, there are simply too many species, too many variations within species, and too many closely similar species among moths to be handled by a single book (especially one small enough to be taken out into the field). While field guides are still good places to start, especially to identify a moth to family, subfamily, or genus, internet websites are able to handle more species, provide more information per species, and can be updated more rapidly. There are now a number of websites that specialize in providing identifications for moths, three of which are particularly useful for identifying a species from scratch.

The Moth Photographer’s Group (MPG) Website
(http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/ ) aims at providing photographs, distribution maps, and flight charts for all North American species of moths, both micros and macros. The taxonomy is the most up-to-date of any current source and multiple photos are usually included, capturing some of the range of variation found in a given species. Caterpillars are also shown in some cases, and there is also library of genitalic slides for some species. For identifying an unknown moth, the website can be used like a field guide, where a moth or a photo is matched against a picture in the website. Since there are thousands of moths to scan through, MPG makes the process easier by providing a series of plates of both spread specimens and live moths. These are sorted taxonomically and are easiest to use if you already have some idea about what family the moth might belong to.

BugGuide
(http://bugguide.net/node/view/15740) is a key resource for identifying all terrestrial arthropods. Its coverage of moth species is similar to that of MPG and makes use of the same taxonomic sources. Although its distribution maps are less detailed than MPG’s, BugGuide otherwise provides a lot more information for each species (not all of which is yet filled in for any given species). Like MPG, it also has a scanning function (Browse) that allows fairly rapid comparison between the specimen to be identified and potentially matching species. In BugGuide’s version, browsing for matches can be done hierarchically, starting at any taxonomic level between Superfamily and Genus, and then successively narrowing the choices. For example, if you know that your moth belongs to the Inchworm family – Geometridae – you can start at that level and narrow it down first to subfamily, then to tribe, then to genus, and finally to a particular species. This approach is not only useful for someone who knows little, if anything, about moth taxonomy, but also provides an efficient way of searching for someone with more experience, who can start the process much lower down in the hierarchy (the authors of this website make frequent use of this service).

Where no apparent match can be made through this process, BugGuide also offers to identify photos of unknown species (see http://bugguide.net/node/view/6/bgimage?from=24). This is a free service and is done via collaboration with BugGuide’s existing members (joining BugGuide is also free). MPG offers a similar service (see http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/Submit.shtml), but they recommend that BugGuide be consulted first.

Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA)
http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ aims to provide photos and life-history information on all North American Lepidoptera. Like MPG and BugGuide, it offers a field guide approach to identifying species, again providing a way to scan through a number of higher level categories, narrowing the search ultimately down to just a single species. Photos can also be submitted for identification by regional experts (see http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/identify).

Other Websites

A growing number of other websites exist that provide identified images of moths. One that is general in its coverage is:

• Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) (http://www.boldsystems.org/) -- provides photos of species that have been submitted for genetic analysis

Several websites are devoted to particular taxonomic groups, including the following that specialize on micro-moths:

• Tortricid.net, by Todd Gilligan (http://www.tortricidae.com/default.asp) -- covers the Tortricidae of the world; includes photographs of pinned specimens
• Pterophoridae of North America, by Deborah Matthews (http://www.plumemoth.com) – contains a checklist for North American species of Plume Moths; has photographs of some species and links to other webpages; provides an extensive bibliography for this group
• Microleps.org, by Terry Harrison (http://microleps.org/index.html) – contains extensive information on microlepidoptera, with annotated photos provided for a large number of species but concentrates on those found in Illinois

Websites that cover the moth fauna of individual states include the following for our neighboring states:

• Georgia Lepidoptera, by James Adams (http://www.daltonstate.edu/galeps/) – includes both moths and butterflies; provides a checklist of species that have been found in Georgia or that could possibly occur there; photographs are given for many of the species
• South Carolina Moths Searchable Checklist, by John Snyder (http://insect.furman.edu/sc-moths/) – contains a complete checklist of moths for South Carolina, with links to photographs and maps showing species’ distributions in the state
• Atlas of Rare Butterflies, Skippers, Moths, Dragonflies & Damselflies of Virginia, Virginia Natural Heritage Program (http://www.vararespecies.org) – covers rare species only but with important information regarding conservation

Among the many personal websites that contain moth photographs, the following concentrate on North Carolina species:

• Carolina Nature, by Will Cook (http://www.carolinanature.com/moths/)
• Jeff’s Moth Photos, by Jeff Pippen (http://www.jeffpippen.com/naturephotos/moths.htm)

TECHNICAL LITERATURE

The field guide approach used by both the field guides and the websites – i.e., matching specimens (or photos of them) to photos – is all that is needed in many cases, but with so much individual variation and the large number of closely similar species found among moths, identification often requires measurements or the examination of smaller or more hidden morphological structures than are usually visible in photographs. In some cases, these features are described in the text of the field guides or websites but typically they are not mentioned at all. For our purposes, however, we need as precise identifications as possible, sometimes requiring the use of more detailed information available only in the underlying taxonomic literature, i.e., the same information used by taxonomists or collection curators to sort and assign specimens according to the features by which they were originally described.

For the more obscure groups – unfortunately including many of the micros – the original descriptions of a species may need to be sought out (although some, at least, are now available online; BugGuide is a good place to look for links). More useful are references that summarize the technical information at higher levels, e.g., genus or family. Most useful of all are those that provide dichotomous keys, based on diagnostic features that allow precise discriminations to be made between species.

The single most authoritative sources are the Moths of America North of Mexico (MONA) Series. These are monographs written by taxonomic experts on a particular group of moths that contain detailed descriptions and photographs, usually with at least some information also provided on larval host plants, habitats, and range. Although a number of these monographs have now been completed (see http://www.wedgefoundation.org/publications.asp), many groups – including some of the largest and most problematic (e.g., the Acronictas and Catocalas) – are still works in progress.

Another excellent source is Forbes’ Lepidoptera of New York and Neighboring States (in four volumes). Although much older than the MONA series and with much of its taxonomy and range information now out of date, Forbes’ books still provides some of the most useful technical descriptions and dichotomous keys for many of the moth species found in our area.

Other books and articles exist for individual families and genera, which are cited in our Species Accounts. Some of these references are available for purchase (some, like the MONA series, being fairly expensive) and most are available in university libraries or other large reference libraries (which can usually obtain them through inter-library loan if they do not have copies themselves). For the most part, the diagnostic information provided by these sources is what we rely on for identifying species and is summarized in the ID Comments section of the Species Accounts (still to be filled in for many species).

All of these references make use of specialized terms for describing markings and structures. Glossaries that describe these terms can be found in several of the works cited above, but two that are fairly accessible are Covell's Field Guide to the Moths (Covell, 1984) and the excellent online glossary included in the Pacific Northwest Moths website, available at: http://pnwmoths.biol.wwu.edu/about-moths/glossary/.

SPECIMEN-BASED IDENTIFICATION

A large number of moth species cannot be reliably identified using photographs alone: many of the key diagnostic features, as described in the technical literature mentioned above, can only be seen in collected specimens and usually require magnification and often dissection to get a clear view. If you are fortunate enough to live near a large reference collection, such as the Insect Museum at NC State University, direct comparison of a specimen to those identified in the collection offers one of the most traditional means of determining an unknown species. Specimens can also be taken to county extension service for identification or shipped to the NC State University Plant Disease and Insect Clinic (especially good for identifying caterpillars and their hostplants; see http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/plantpath/extension/clinic/).

Individual members of the North Carolina Biodiversity Project may also be willing to identify collected specimens, but usually only where a specimen would be particularly interesting taxonomically or where its occurrence would be new for either the state as a whole or for a particular region or habitat type (see Contacts for more information).

GENETIC ANALYSIS

DNA analysis has resulted in a revolution in taxonomic studies, revealing new relationships between species and in many cases leading to the discovery of new species that had not been previously identified based on morphology alone. Although these techniques are not yet generally available to anyone wishing to identify a particular unknown specimen, they are becoming more routinely used by taxonomists and have been employed in North Carolina in identifying and describing a number of species (see below).

The CO1 gene (which codes for a portion of Cytochrome Oxidase, an enzyme used in energy production in the mitochondria) is present in all eucaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, and protista). Differences in the sequences between species reflects the accumulation of mutations that do not affect the function of the gene (i.e., are neutral in their effects). Such mutations are believed to occur randomly but to accumulate at a fairly fixed rate (similar to the radioactive decay of atoms). This provides a “molecular clock” for gauging how long two particular populations – once originally part of the same gene pool -- have been genetically isolated from one another: the longer the period of isolation, the greater the degree of their differences in their sequences for the CO1 gene.

Research has shown that a 2% difference in CO1 sequences is usually sufficient to identify two populations as distinct species, where individuals are no longer capable of interbreeding. This is true even where there may be little or no obvious differences in outward appearance (at least to a human observer). While that does not mean that species cannot become reproductively isolated over shorter intervals. For example, the black-winged Catocalas appear to be “good” species, showing at least some degree of reproductive isolation, even though they do not show a 2% difference in their CO1 sequences. Where a 2% difference is found, however, that usually indicates that a more careful search be made for differences in morphological, behavioral or ecological characters, revealing characters that allow for a conclusive recognition of new species

For the past 8 years we have been using DNA barcoding to investigate a number of questions concerning the variation of moth populations across North Carolina. We have looked at species where various polymorphic forms occur, where broods look very different, where broods occur at peculiar times, and where our populations are disjunct from the rest of the species’ range, all with the goal to determine whether they represent single species – as originally described – or are actually multiple sibling (and often cryptic) species. Followed by additional morphological, ecological and behavioral differences, these discoveries have led to the formal description of a number of new species, including the following: Morrisonia triangula (Sullivan and Adams, 2009), Rivula stepheni (Sullivan, 2009), Gondysia telma (Sullivan, 2010; Sullivan and Legrain, 2011), Palpita maritima (Sullivan and Solis, 2013), and Cherokeea attakullakulla (Quinter and Sullivan, 2014). Many more descriptions are currently in progress.

Paragraph header in BOLD.

A paragraph of text goes here.

Another paragraph of text goes here.

A third paragraph of text can go here.