Moths of North Carolina |
In Memoriam: | |
![]() | With great sadness, we mourn the passing of Bo Sullivan, one of the founding members of both the Moths of North Carolina website and the North Carolina Biodiversity Project. Moths were long a passion of Bo’s and he began his efforts to document the species of North Carolina in the 1970s; one of his major finds was a specimen he collected in 1974 of Hemipachnobia subporphyrea, a species that had not been seen anywhere since it was first found in the 1790s. He subsequently conducted surveys across the state, particularly the southern Coastal Plain, Fall-line Sandhills, and northern Mountains, all particularly rich in moth species . Bo was our chief taxonomist, and with his immense reference collection at hand – now deposited at the Smithsonian – he was able to identify nearly every species submitted to our website. His scientific expertise will be sorely missed, along with his good humor, hospitality, and comradery in the field. He was a good friend as well as a mentor to us all. |
Welcome to the "Moths of North Carolina" website! |
![]() Acasis viridata by Jim Petranka Olive-and-black Carpet | Paonias astylus by Paul Scharf Huckleberry Sphinx | ![]() Eugnosta sartana by Kyle Kittelberger Broad-patched Eugnosta | Morrisonia mucens by Britta Muiznieks Gray Woodgrain | ![]() Acronicta funeralis by Jim Petranka Funerary Dagger | ![]() Perispasta caeculalis by J. Merrill Lynch Titian Peale's Moth |
Aims of this website Our intention with this website is to shine a brighter light on moths. We have two main aims in this regard: • Provide information to people who are interested in learning more about moths. This website aims to provide a compendium of all of the moth species recorded in North Carolina, with pictures of each species, information on species identification, general information about their distribution in the state (by county), their relative abundance in the state, their seasonal occurrence in the state, their habitats, and their food preferences, as well as additional comments on the species (such as notable facts, taxonomic issues, or population trends). County maps of occurrence are provided for each species. • Build a base of public support for the conservation of Lepidoptera and their habitats in North Carolina. We want to make clear the situation that faces moths and other species in terms of their continued survival in our state and share this information to help guide conservation decisions made by individual land-owners, conservation organizations, governmental agencies, and particularly by the public. To accomplish these goals, especially where they involve moths or other species not usually given much public attention, we need to make our case from the best evidence we can muster, placing the plight of moths well within the context of the larger world of which both we and they are an important part. |
How to navigate the website To see a species account, start typing the scientific name in the Search Scientific Name field or, if a common name exists, the common name is the Search Common Name field. Names of species appear on the screen; click on the correct species that you want, so that the full name appears in the field box; then click Find (to the right). Once you are at a species account, you can navigate to the previous species in the checklist sequence by clicking on the Baltimore Snout How to Identify a Moth While we will eventually have identification tips included in the Species Accounts for all species that occur in the state, there are a number of other identification guides that already exist and are specifically tailored for identifying an unknown moth. Information on these resources is included in the Identification Guides tab on the main menu bar located at the top of the Home Page. How to become a Citizen Scientist One of our main aims is to involve the public in documenting the distribution and habitat associations of the state’s moth fauna. We therefore welcome records from anyone wishes to submit for species observed in North Carolina. Information on how to submit records and the details we need to vet the records are included in the Citizen Science tab on the main menu bar located at the top of the Home Page. Number of taxa with records: 3,135 Number of records: 209,504 Number of photos: 109,945 |
Citation: Hall, S.P.; Sullivan, J.B.; Petranka, J.W.; Feldman, T.; George, D.; Niznik, J.; Backstrom, P.; and Howard, T. 2025. The Moths of North Carolina [Internet]. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina Biodiversity Project and North Carolina State Parks. Available from https://auth1.dpr.ncparks.gov/moths/index.php. |
Why devote a website to moths? Moths are one of the most important and interesting though least appreciated groups of species that occur in our state. Although far less familiar (or valued) than butterflies – which are essentially just a small group of day-flying moths – moths have all of the same grace and beauty that people associate with that group but are more than ten times as diverse in terms of species and include an even greater variety of body sizes, shapes, and color patterns. They range from tiny fairy and pygmy moths, only a few millimeters in length and whose shimmering colors and patterns can barely be seen with the naked eye, to the giant silk moths, such as the Cecropia and Polyphemus Moths, which are among our most majestic insects, exceeding some of our bats and hummingbirds in both size and weight! Together with butterflies, moths are one of the most evolutionarily successful and diverse groups of all organisms – Lepidoptera are second only to beetles in terms of named species. Ecologically, they are among the most important herbivores on the planet: there are more species of plant-feeding Lepidoptera than in any other group of organisms (Grimaldi and Engel, 2005). Since they first arose in the Jurrasic Period, the lives of Lepidoptera have been particularly intertwined with those of flowering plants, with both groups evolving specializations and counter-specializations to deal with their relationships as predators and prey, as well as complex adaptations related to mutually beneficial partnerships, particularly pollination. As a consequence of these interactions, the caterpillars of many species feed on just a narrow range of host plants, often just a single species or just a few within a given genus. Equally important, the evolution of Lepidoptera has been strongly shaped by their own relationships as prey to many other groups of animals. Birds and bats are especially dependent on Lepidoptera. The bark-like color and texture of Underwing moths, along with the bright, startling colors of their hindwings, are adaptations to the predation pressure of sharp-eyed, color sensitive birds, as are the tendril-shapes of Phyprosopus larvae, the gaudy warning coloration of Tiger Moths, and the wasp-like shapes and coloration of many species of Clearwings, Wasp Moths, and other mimics. Night-flying itself – a predominant feature of moths – may be a response to bird predation, with the trade-off that there are bats to contend with, forcing evolution of another complex set of adaptations, ranging from the ability to hear ultrasounds – found in many species of the macro-moths – to the ability of some poisonous Tiger Moths to broadcast their own warning sounds (the equivalent of warning colors in diurnal species) back to the bats, or to actually jam the sonar of the bats (see Conner, 2008). |
As mainly nocturnal animals, coloration is less important in social interactions than it is in butterflies. Instead, the social behavior of moths is so heavily shaped by scents that – poor-smellers that we are – we can scarcely imagine its complexity. Due to their nocturnality, we are also only dimly aware of many of their other complex interactions with their environment. One result of these interactions is highly visible, however: the extreme degree of habitat specialization seen in many species of moths. Pitcher Plant Moths in the genus Exyra provide an especially good but not atypical example. All three species in this genus spend almost their entire lives inside the pitchers of these plants, which are otherwise adapted to catching and killing insects to extract their nutrients – the list of adaptations needed for these moths to negotiate the slick linings of these tubes and to avoid the watery death below is impressively long. The pitcher plants themselves are found within just a narrow range of habitats – frequently burned savannas and peatlands in our state. Whereas the plants are quite well-adapted to surviving a fire on-site, sprouting up quickly after a fire from underground rhizomes, the moths have no such adaptations. Instead, they make use of their abilities to rapidly re-colonize burned areas from sites that escaped a burn, which means that – far more important to them than to their host plants – they can only survive where patches of pitcher plants are widely distributed across the landscape, i.e., they have large number of additional habitat requirements that are not completely shared with their host plants. While there are a lot of impressive habitat generalists among our moths, for example, the various agricultural pests called Armyworms, there are probably more species of habitat specialists – completely restricted to native habitats – among our moths than in any other group of species in our state, certainly among animals. This close association between species and their habitats, in turn, can make them highly vulnerable to changes in the environment that result in reduction and fragmentation of those habitats. Insects, moreover, are affected not only by reductions in the habitat quality and extent, but also by the loss of their ability to move easily through the landscape, which is among their most important adaptations for dealing with environmental disturbances (as seen, for example, among the Pitcher Plant Moths in coping with fire). With all of the massive and pervasive changes that have occurred in our state, and are continuing on at an accelerated rate, it should not be surprising that there is a large proportion of moth species that are declining or disappearing, although much of that occurring out of sight or sound This group of valuable and amazing organisms is far overdue for more attention and we hope our website can serve this purpose! |
The Moths of North Carolina Website is being developed through a partnership between the North Carolina State Parks System (NC DPR) and the North Carolina Biodiversity Project (NCBG), a non-profit, education- and conservation-oriented association composed of field biologists specializing in taxonomy, ecology, and conservation of the state’s native species and ecosystems. This partnership serves NC DPR’s mission of providing "environmental education opportunities that promote stewardship of the state's natural heritage". It is also serves NCBG core interests in promoting awareness and interest in the general public concerning the state’s rich variety of native species, and in generating a wide base of support for the conservation of these resources.
|
Community ScienceYou 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:
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 RecordBefore 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 ProcessOnce 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 MothThis 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 BugGuide 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) Other Websites
A growing number of other websites exist that provide identified images of moths. One that is general in its coverage is:
Several websites are devoted to particular taxonomic groups, including the following that specialize on micro-moths:
Websites that cover the moth fauna of individual states include the following for our neighboring states:
Among the many personal websites that contain moth photographs, the following concentrate on North Carolina species:
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). In the Species Status comments included in the Species Account, we summarize the results of one particular method referred to as Genetic Barcoding (reference). This is a DNA sequencing technique that has become exceedingly popular over the past 10 years and has now been used to examine the taxonomic status of many groups of species, including a large number of moths. This method reads the sequence of nucleotides in a single mitochondrial gene (CO1) analogously to the way a barcode reader identifies a product label in a grocery store: each species has a unique sequence (with some minor variation among individuals and populations) that serves as a unique identifier, allowing comparisons to be made between an unknown specimen and previously sequenced species. 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. |